Robinson,  John  Lunsford, 
1860- 

Evolution  and  religion 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/evolutionreligioOOrobi 


EVOLUTION 
and  RELIGION 


Copyright,  1923 

The  STRATFORD  CO.,  Publishers 
Boston,  Mass. 


The  Alpine  Press,  Boston,  Mass.,  U.  S.  A. 


Dedicated 

TO  MY  WIFE  AND  OUR  DAUGHTER,  OLIVE,  AND 
TO  ALL  OTHER  LOVERS  OF  TRUTH 
AND  RIGHT-LIVING. 


Foreword 


TO  GIVE  to  every  man,  woman,  and  child  of  our 
Nation,  the  opportunity  to  prepare  themselves 
for  successful  living  is  a  prodigious  task.  However, 
that  is  exactly  what  the  educational  and  religious 
forces  of  the  United  States  are  attempting  to  do. 
Millions  of  dollars  are  spent  every  year  for  research 
work  in  order  that  new  devices  may  be  perfected  and 
put  into  use  for  the  comfort  of  human  beings  and 
that  facts,  hitherto  unknown  to  man,  may  be  dis¬ 
covered  to  add  to  the  happiness  of  mankind  by 
helping  them  to  understand  the  beauties  and  wonders 
of  nature  about  them.  Other  millions  are  used  for 
securing  the  services  of  some  of  the  best,  both 
morally  and  intellectually,  of  our  citizens  as  teachers 
and  ministers  for  guiding  our  young  people  in  their 
search  for  knowledge  and  happiness.  Based  on  such 
principles  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  United  States  has 
attained  such  preeminence  in  such  a  short  period  of 
time. 

In  order  to  continue  our  advancement  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  embody  in  our  teaching  all  newly  discovered 
facts.  However,  there  are  a  few  people  who  wish  to 
have  laws  which  would  prohibit  the  teaching  of 
certain  facts  which  they  say  are  not  in  harmony 
with  the  Bible,  although  some  of  them  admit  they 


FOREWORD 


know  nothing  about  the  new  facts  of  science  and 
should  admit  that  they  know  very  little  about  the 
Bible.  It  is  the  greatest  puzzle  of  modern  times  to  try 
to  understand  how  a  sane  man  who  has  no  knowledge 
of  biology  and  who  has  done  no  studying  in  a 
theological  institution  can  continue  to  say  that  the 
best  scientists  are  wrong  in  the  interpretation  of 
biological  facts  and  that  the  most  highly  trained 
ministers  are  wrong  in  the  interpretations  of  the 
Bible. 

I  take  pleasure  in  writing  the  foreword  for  this 
work,  written  by  one  who  has  attained  distinction 
as  a  minister  and  has  taken  the  time  to  properly 
inform  himself  on  the  subject  of  evolution  which  he 
shows  conclusively  is  in  complete  harmony  with 
Christianity. 

This  book  should  do  a  great  deal  towards  driving 
from  the  face  of  the  earth  superstition,  prejudice 
and  ignorance  regarding  the  general  theory  of  evolu¬ 
tion  and  the  Bible.  It  should  silence  those  wTho  are 
ignorant  of  natural  sciences  and  who  have  had  no 
special  training  on  the  origin  and  interpretation  of 
the  Bible.  It  can  be  read  with  pleasure  and  profit 
by  all,  and  should  be  studied  diligently  by  those 
who  desire  to  know  the  truth. 

R.  C.  SPANGLER. 

Assistant  Professor  of  Botany, 
West  Virginia  University. 

Morgantown,  West  Virginia. 


Contents 


Chapter  Page 

i.  Introduction  .......  1 

ii.  Who  Are  Evolutionists'?  .  ...  17 

hi.  Who  Are  the  Anti-Evolutionists?  .  .  .39 

iv.  Evolution  and  the  Bible  .  .  .  .  .46 

v.  The  Bible  Not  an  Inerrant  Book  .  .  .67 

vi.  Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution  .  .79 

vn.  Evolution  and  Revelation  ....  125 

vin.  What  Should  Be  Our  Attitude  Toward  Evo¬ 
lution  .......  132 

ix.  Outlook  for  the  Future  of  Evolution  and  Aca¬ 
demic  Freedom  .....  146 


Bibliography 


.  169 


CHAPTER  I 


Introduction 

THERE  is  a  wide-spread  interest  in  the 
subject  of  evolution,  and  the  people  of  a 
great,  free,  and  progressive  country  ought 
to  study  the  subject  in  a  sincere,  intelligent  way, 
in  order  that  we  may  know  the  truth. 

It  is  not  a  question  of  the  soul’s  everlasting 
salvation ;  but  the  principles  of  evolution  under¬ 
lie  the  whole  framework  of  a  complete  and 
thorough-going  education.  The  study  and  dis¬ 
cussion  should  be  carried  on  in  the  spirit  of 
Ephesians  4:31;  “Let  all  bitterness,  and  wrath, 
and  anger,  and  clamor,  and  evil-speaking  be  put 
away  from  you,  with  all  malice.” 

Evolution  is  a  beautiful  doctrine.  It  is  won¬ 
derfully  interesting.  It  tells  us  of  the  far- 
away  beginnings  of  very  simple  forms  of  vege¬ 
table  and  animal  life  on  this  planet  of  ours.  It 
shows  us  some  of  the  steps  in  the  process  and 
some  of  the  causes  of  the  progress  of  those 


Evolution  and  Beligion 


simple  forms  into  higher  and  still  higher  life, 
nntil  we  reach  the  wonderful,  the  sublime  per¬ 
fection  of  our  present  order.  As  we  study  the 
evidence  of  those  long  ages  of  slow  growth;  as 
we  see  a  little  done  here  and  there  to  make 
things  strong,  useful,  and  beautiful,  we  are 
filled  with  wonder  at  the  unwearied  toil  of  the 
over-patient  God.  Presumably,  He  could  have 
made  the  horse  in  a  few  minutes  as  perfect  and 
as  beautiful  as  he  is  today,  hut  the  fact  seems 
most  thoroughly  established  that  He  worked  at 
it  hundreds  of  thousands  of  years.  That  is 
nothing  to  God’s  discredit.  He  has  a  right  to 
do  things  in  His  own  way.  Why  this  length 
of  time  instead  of  a  few  minutes  or  hours,  no 
one  knows.  Maybe  some  day  we  shall  know. 

There  are  two  very  interesting  facts  in  con¬ 
nection  with  this  part  of  the  subject:  the  first 
is,  that  very  few  things  in  the  vegetable  and 
animal  world  have  been  brought  to  their  pres¬ 
ent  state  of  perfection  without  the  help  of  man. 
God  made  the  ponies  and  donkeys  of  a  far-away 
time,  but  he  said,  in  effect,  to  man:  “If  you 
want  the  draught  horse  or  the  race  horse  you 
must  help.”  So  man,  by  artificial  selection,  has 


[2] 


Introduction 


helped  to  make  the  work  horse  and  the  racer. 
God  made  the  rosaceae,  the  wild  rose,  the  crab 
apple,  but  man,  by  artificial  selection,  has  helped 
to  make  the  wonderful  American  Beauty  rose, 
the  Winesap  apple,  the  peach,  the  plum  and 
many  other  delicious  fruits.  This  is  in  keeping 
with  the  Scriptures  which  say:  “For  we  are 
workers  together  with  God.  ”  First  Corinthians 
3 :9.  God  made  the  trees  with  wood  that  is 
resonant,  but  God  could  not  make  the  perfect 
violin  without  Stradivarius.  Stradivarius  was 
not  impertinent  when  he  said  that  God  could  not 
make  the  perfect  violin  without  him.  In  thou¬ 
sands  of  other  things,  in  our  industrial,  our 
moral,  our  spiritual  upbuilding  we  must  work 
together  with  God. 

The  other  interesting  and  awful  fact  is  this : 
the  laws  of  evolution  do  not  always  mean  up¬ 
ward  progress.  If  a  bud  grows  out  on  the  side 
of  the  oak,  it  can  grow  sidewise  or  downwise, 
but  it  can  never  go  back  into  the  tree,  and  be¬ 
come  a  terminal  bud.  So  it  is  with  the  present- 
day  monkey.  “It  is  not  on  the  highway 
to  become  a  man.”  (LeConte).  It  missed  its 
opportunity,  if  it  ever  had  it,  once  and  for  all. 


[3] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


The  degeneration  of  the  body  and  the  degenera¬ 
tion  of  the  sonl  are  sad  facts  in  human  history. 

Man  has  not  reached  a  state  of  perfection  in 
his  industrial  life,  nor  in  any  department  of 
his  life.  Evolution  and  man  have  not  done  their 
perfect  work.  Even  a  very  casual  glance  at  the 
evils  in  human  life  shows  us  its  sad  disharmo¬ 
nies.  Some  people  living  in  sinful  waste,  and 
others  dying  for  want  of  bread.  Greed,  lust  of 
power,  brute  appetite  uncontrolled.  The  worst  of 
all,  some  people  do  not  care.  The  divine  commu¬ 
nity  interest  in  them  has  not  yet  been  awakened. 
But,  while  there  is  no  reason  for  gloom,  there 
is  the  most  urgent  reason  for  us  to  bestir  our¬ 
selves.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  the  evolution 
of  our  industrial  system,  our  morals,  our  spir¬ 
itual  ideals.  The  silent  God  is  working  on, 
knocking  at  the  door  of  our  reason,  and  in¬ 
sistently  putting  before  us  the  everlasting 
OUGHT.  Out  of  this  is  going  to  come  a  finer 
race  of  men.  More  peace,  more  safety,  more 
bread. 

The  doctrine  of  evolution  is  true  to  some  ex¬ 
tent,  at  least.  That  there  is  wonderful  varia¬ 
tion  in  plant  and  animal  life,  even  at  the  present 

[4] 


Introduction 


time,  no  educated  man  would  think  of  denying. 
Since  the  beginning  of  human  history  man  has 
witnessed  the  variation  in  the  horse,  dog,  and 
other  animals,  and  in  plants,  fruits,  etc.  The 
rose,  the  crab  apple,  the  peach,  the  plum,  the 
strawberry  and  other  berries  all  came  from  a 
common  ancestor.  They  are  all  rosaceae.  What 
a  wonderful  thing  that  such  different  fruits  and 
flowers  should  come  from  a  common  stem!  Is 
it  unreasonable  to  believe  that  this  law  of  varia¬ 
tion  has  been  going  on  ever  since  the  appear¬ 
ance  of  the  first  plant  cell  and  the  first  animal 
cell,  some  millions  of  years  ago?  If  variation 
has  been  going  on  millions  of  years,  the  most 
natural,  the  most  reasonable  thing  to  expect  is 
the  development  of  things  in  the  manner 
affirmed  by  evolutionists — gradual  changes  from 
lower  to  higher — “descent  with  modifications.” 
Let  us  give  the  evolutionists  a  patient  hearing 
and  patient  study  when  they  tell  us  that  there 
has  been  progressive  change,  generation  after 
generation,  and  that  these  changes  have  been  in 
keeping  with  well-established  laws,  and  by 
means  of  forces  residing  within  the  organism. 

The  man  who  thinks  that  the  evolutionary 

[5] 


T 


Evolution  and  Religion 


theory  of  the  origin  of  man  contradicts  the 
Bible  —  is  he  perfectly  certain  that  he  under¬ 
stands  the  Bible  language  which  describes  the 
creation  of  man?  Is  he  perfectly  certain  that 
God  made  man  as  a  child  makes  mud  dolls? 
This  was  the  way  I  thought  man  was  made  when 
I  was  a  child.  Some  people  seem  to  thing  so 
today. 

Are  you  perfectly  certain  that  God  made  man 
with  his  hands  and  fingers  ?  This  seems  to  have 
been  the  belief  of  the  Psalmist.  “When  I  con¬ 
sider  thy  heavens,  the  work  of  thy  fingers,  etc. 1 9 
Psa.  8 :3.  The  Psalmist  seems  to  think  that  there 
was  another  way,  with  his  “voice,”  with  the 
“word  of  his  mouth.”  Psalm  33:6,  33:9.  Are 
the  anti-evolutionists  perfectly  certain  that  man 
was  made  with  the  hands  and  fingers  of  God? 
Or  was  he  made  with  His  “voice,”  with  His 
‘  ‘  word  ’  ’  ? 

Some  of  the  Fathers  of  the  church  in  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  Christianity  believed  that  God  made 
man  with  his  hands  and  fingers,  but  some  of 
them  did  not.  Some  said  “that  is  a  too  mate¬ 
rialistic  way  of  looking  at  the  subject.  Man  was 
made,”  they  said,  “by  the  ‘voice  of  God\” 


[6] 


Introduction 


This  last  position  was  held  by  St.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  Augustine,  Bede,  and  others.  Do  the 
anti-evolutionists  know  for  a  certainty  which 
one  of  these  methods  was  employed? 

There  is  another  question  that  should  he  con¬ 
sidered  in  connection  with  the  Bible  account: 
May  it  not  be  that  man  began  his  development 
then  as  he  does  now  from  a  microscopic  germ 
cell?  May  it  not  he  that  God  first  made  the 
germ  cell  substantially  as  we  know  it  today,  and 
caused  it  to  grow  through  all  the  stages  of  de¬ 
velopment  as  it  does  today?  He  might  have 
done  it  in  a  few  hours  instead  of  nine  months, 
or  ten  months  or  more.  Who  knows  ?  Is  there 
anything  in  the  Bible  text  to  rule  out  this  last 
supposition? 

The  anti-evolutionist  has  a  big  task  on  his 
hand  when  he  undertakes  to  tell  us  just  exactly 
how  man  was  made. 

As  we  can  not  tell  for  a  certainty  how  man 
was  made  according  to  Bible  accounts,  it  mil 
not  be  out  of  place  to  hear  what  evolutionists 
have  to  say  about  the  method  of  man’s  creation. 

But,  it  is  insisted,  “man  was  made  in  the 
image  of  God,”  and  that  precludes  the  doctrine 


[7] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


of  descent  from  lower  forms  of  animal  life.  Is 
God’s  bodily  form  like  man’s,  only  a  little  big¬ 
ger?  Is  bodily  sliape  what  is  meant  when  it  is 
said  “man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God?” 
That  was  the  old  idea,  but  more  and  more  peo¬ 
ple  of  all  denominations  are  throwing  aside  that 
idea.  Jesus  said:  “God  is  spirit.”  Our  like¬ 
ness  to  God  is  a  spiritual  likeness.  We  have 
intellect,  sensibility,  and  will,  like  God.  This  is 
the  supreme  difference  between  man  and  the 
lower  forms  of  life.  Because  of  this  difference 
we  affirm  of  man  what  we  do  not  affirm  of  any 
other  creature  —  we  call  him  a  child  of  God. 
This  is  the  real  worthwhile  thing  about  our  like¬ 
ness  to  God.  If  God  has  a  bodily  form,  and, 
if  it  is  meant  we  are  like  this  bodily  form  there 
is  nothing  helpful,  inspiring  about  that;  but  if 
our  likeness  is  a  spiritual  likeness  that  is  some¬ 
thing  great  indeed,  and  should  fill  us  with  rev¬ 
erence  and  gratitude. 

There  are  many  thousands  of  good  people 
who  believe  that  the  Bible  teaches  man  was 
made  in  a  day  or  less  time,  out  of  dust  or  mud, 
and,  it  is  asked,  why  disturb  their  faith?  That 
is  a  pertinent  question,  and  deserves  a  candid, 


[8] 


Introduction 


sympathetic  answer.  Evolutionists  have  no  wish 
to  destroy  people’s  preconceived  notions  unless 
they  think  they  can  give  something  as  good  or 
better  to  take  their  place.  It  is  said  by  the  over¬ 
cautious,  “if  ignorance  is  bliss,  it  is  surely  folly 
to  be  wise.”  That  is  true  to  a  limited  extent, 
and  in  a  very  few  things.  I  do  not  think  that 
the  details  of  coarse,  vulgar  crimes  should  be 
published  to  the  world.  Surely  no  one  is  made 
better,  but  worse,  by  such  filthy  details.  But 
knowledge  in  general  is  the  spirit  of  the  age. 
Important  things  are  not  kept  secret  as  in 
former  days.  Our  statesmen  are  advocating 
open  diplomacy.  “Open  covenants  between  na¬ 
tions,  openly  arrived  at,”  is  a  splendid  slogan. 
Even  the  sex  relation  we  are  discussing  in  a 
serious,  reverent  way  for  the  protection  of  our 
boys  and  girls.  So,  whatever  truth  seems  to  be 
important,  we  come  out  into  the  open,  and  dis¬ 
cuss  it. 

A  thousand  years  ago  and  less  most  all  the 
good  people  and  some  that  were  not  good  be¬ 
lieved  that  the  earth  was  flat,  and  it  disturbed 
somebody’s  faith  greatly,  when  it  was  first 
pointed  out  that  it  was  round.  Then  came  the 


[9] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


distressing  news  to  many  good  people  that  the 
earth  revolves  around  the  sun,  and  not  the  sun 
around  the  earth,  and  that  the  sun,  and  not  the 
earth,  is  the  center  of  our  planetary  system. 
The  fact  is,  ever  since  man  has  been  on  this 
globe,  and  has  found  out  some  great  truths  or 
traditions  by  which  he  has  shaped  his  life,  along 
has  come  some  new  thing  to  modify  or  upset  his 
beliefs.  Perhaps  this  thing  will  go  on  to  the 
end  of  time.  But  what  shall  we  say  of  the  new 
things  that  have  upset  or  modified  the  beliefs 
of  man?  Unless  the  origin  of  man  from  lower 
forms  by  slow  graduations  is  an  exception,  I 
can  say  without  fear  of  serious  dissent  that  no 
great  prophet  has  taken  a  stand  against  the 
old  views,  no  body  of  scientists  has  taken  a  posi¬ 
tion  against  the  old  doctrines  without  giving 
something  better  in  return.  I  will  give  three 
examples.  Hundreds  could  be  given.  We  can 
see  the  disturbing,  uplifting  beginning  of  the 
new  things  in  the  Old  Testament.  Some  of  the 
scribes  or  prophets  had  taught  that  the  children 
were  punished  for  the  sins  of  their  fathers;  but 
another  prophet  rose  up,  and  said,  every  man 
must  bear  his  own  iniquity.  “What  mean  ye, 


[10] 


Introduction 


that  ye  use  this  proverb  concerning  the  land  of 
Israel,  saying,  the  fathers  have  eaten  sour 
grapes,  and  the  children’s  teeth  are  set  on  edge? 
As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord,  God,  ye  shall  not  have 
occasion  any  more  to  use  this  proverb  in  Israel. 
Behold,  all  souls  are  mine;  as  the  soul  of  the 
father,  so  also  the  soul  of  the  son  is  mine :  the 
soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die.”  Ezekiel  18:3-4. 
This  whole  eighteenth  chapter  is  a  plain  setting 
forth  of  the  fact  that  God  deals  with  the  chil¬ 
dren  according  to  what  they  have  done,  not 
according  to  what  their  fathers  have  done. 

No  one  has  studied  the  Old  Testament 
aright  if  he  does  not  see  that  it  is  an  upward 
progress  from  lower  to  higher  ideals.  And  every 
step  of  the  progress  has  disturbed  someone’s 
faith. 

In  the  fifth  chapter  of  Matthew,  Jesus  puts  a 
better  interpretation  upon  some  of  the  laws  and 
traditions  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  spoke 
against  the  doctrine  of  “an  eye  for  an  eye,  and 
a  tooth  for  a  tooth.” 

In  offering  the  new  for  the  old  he  gave  some¬ 
thing  better. 

The  same  is  true  of  scientists.  In  all  the  past 


Evolution  and  Religion 


they  have  given  something  better  in  place  of  the 
old.  I  will  not  say,  dogmatically,  that  evolution 
is  as  firmly  established  as  the  method  of  crea¬ 
tion  as  gravitation  is,  as  the  method  of  sus- 
tentation;  but  I  will  say,  if  the  overwhelming 
majority  of  scientists  and  educated  people  in 
general  accept  it  as  such,  it  will  be  because 
they  see  in  it  a  wider  vision  of  God  and  a  bet¬ 
ter  understanding  of  our  duties  to  man.  Let 
us  forever  get  away  from  the  idea  that  the 
truth  about  the  Bible  or  the  great  laws  of 
nature  can  hurt  any  one.  One  of  the  greatest 
things  Jesus  ever  said  was :  “  Ye  shall  know  the 
truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  you  free.”  The 
Churchman  (Episcopal)  has  in  a  recent  issue  a 
very  wise  word  for  all  ministers  in  reference  to 
teaching  the  truth  about  the  Bible,  as  reported 
in  The  Literary  Digest,  July  1,  1922.  It  says : 

“How  many  rectors  have  told  their  parish¬ 
ioners  frankly  from  the  pulpit  what  kind  of 
book  the  Bible  is,  how  it  was  fashioned,  what 
has  been  the  history  of  the  progressive  revela¬ 
tion  of  God?”  If  pastors  had  been  frank  and 
outspoken  in  this  respect, 

“Would  there  be  as  much  perplexity,  as  many 

[12] 


Introduction 


false  deductions  in  the  minds  of  the  people  who 
are  still  trying  to  build  their  faith,  erect  ethical 
theories  and  rules  of  conduct  upon  isolated  texts 
in  the  New  Testament,  when  textual  criticism 
may  have  proved  that  some  of  these  passages 
are  spurious  or  do  not  mean  what  they  seem 
to  say?  We  are  familiar  with  the  one  striking 
objection  to  frankness  in  these  matters  in  the 
pulpit.  The  fear  of  disturbing  the  faith  of 
parishioners  has  sapped  the  courage  of  a  good 
many  rectors.  They  are  afraid  that  the  truth 
will  be  misunderstood.  We  must  all  respect 
that  precious  anxiety  which  every  rector  feels 
for  the  faith  of  those  committed  to  his  care. 
But  sincerity  need  not  be  tactless.  It  can  avoid 
being  clever  and  disdainful.  But  pastors,  we 
are  confident,  have  leaned  over  backwards  in 
their  fear  of  hurting  somebody’s  faith.  The 
result  of  their  anxiety  has  been  that  they  have 
lost  the  intellectual  respect  of  the  young.  Lay¬ 
men  are  going  outside  the  churches  to  learn 
what  the  clergy  have  tried  to  conceal,  and  these 
laymen  think  that  the  clergy  are  ignorant. 
They  think  of  us  as  sheltered  and  innocent  and 
are  afraid  to  shock  us  even  by  asking  us 


[ 1 3  ] 


Evolution  and  Beligion 


questions.  They  flatter  themselves  that  what 
they  think  about  the  Bible  is  heretical,  when 
those  same  opinions  were  taught  a  generation 
ago  to  their  rector  in  his  theological  seminary.’ ’ 

“It  has  proved  far  less  dangerous  for  the 
clergy  to  teach  the  truth  they  know  than  to  con¬ 
ceal  it  for  fear  of  hurting  somebody’s  faith. 
The  faith  of  the  Church  is,  after  all,  not  so 
shaky  and  feeble  a  thing  that  it  must  avoid  the 
light.  Nor  was  the  truth  ever  delivered  into 
our  hands  as  a  deposit  that  must  be  fearfully 
hid  away.  It  is  amply  able  to  take  care  of 
itself,  provided  we  yield  to  it  the  loyalty  of 
sincerity.  When  anxious  rectors  say  that  the 
truth  might  undermine  the  faith  of  their  peo¬ 
ple,  they  are  taking  themselves  too  seriously 
and  the  truth  not  seriously  enough.  Never,  in 
all  the  long  centuries  of  its  use,  has  the  Bible 
stood  upon  firmer  ground  than  it  does  today. 
Never  has  its  great  central  message  of  salva¬ 
tion  for  a  race  misled  by  false  gods  and  blinded 
by  sin  rung  clearer  and  sweeter  than  it  does 
today.  God  is  not  afraid,  we  are  quite  sure, 
lest  we  be  sincere.  What  He  fears  is  our  in¬ 
direction,  and,  perhaps,  He  fears  most  of  all 


Introduction 


the  zeal  of  ignorant  men,  unfitted  to  teach,  who 
are  shouting  from  the  housetops  a  message  un¬ 
disturbed  by  facts.” 

Already  thousands  of  people,  ministers  and 
laymen,  professors  in  our  universities  and  high 
schools,  social  workers,  men  and  women  in  all 
walks  of  life  claim  to  see  in  the  laws  of  evolu¬ 
tion  and  in  the  plain  truth  of  historical  criticism 
of  the  Bible  the  greater  wisdom  and  goodness 
of  God,  and  they  feel  a  deeper  sense  of  respon¬ 
sibility  in  the  keeping  of  those  laws.  By  man’s 
efforts  and  the  ceaseless  workings  of  the  nat¬ 
ural  laws  of  God,  man  has  been  brought  to  his 
present  state  of  advancement.  How  can  he 
violate  these  laws  and  descend  below  the  level 
of  the  brute  from  which  he  came?  Living  the 
Ten  Commandments  and  the  Beatitudes  of 
Jesus  are  the  requirements  of  a  sane  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  evolution.  How  can  we  break  these  great 
laws,  and  sin  against  God?  There  is  not  a 
truth  in  physiology  which  helps  us  to  develop 
a  sound  mind  in  a  sound  body;  there  is  not  a 
truth  of  better  industrial  relations  which  brings 
us  nearer  to  our  brothers  in  toil;  there  is  not 
a  truth  of  better  community  up-building,  nor 

[i5] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


is  there  a  moral  or  spiritual  truth  that  does 
not  find  a  hearty  approval  and  sincere  cham¬ 
pionship  by  people  who  believe  in  evolution. 
Evolutionists  seek  to  know  the  truth,  though  it 
may  be  hoary  with  age,  and  they  dare  to  believe 
that  there  is  much  truth  yet  to  be  known,  and 
they  do  not  fear  its  effects  upon  human  life. 

The  wise  attitude  on  the  subject  is  to  welcome 
the  new  if  it  bears  the  marks  of  sincerity  and 
truth. 

Robert  Browning  gives  us  a  beautiful  and 
most  stimulating  thought  in  Paracelsus: 

“  Progress  is 

The  law  of  life,  man  is  not  Man  as  yet. 

Nor  shall  I  deem  his  object  served,  his  end 
Attained,  his  genuine  strength  put  fairly  forth, 
While  only  here  and  there  a  star  dispels 
The  darkness,  —  here  and  there  a  towering  mind 
O’er  looks  its  prostrate  fellows:  when  the  host 
Is  out  at  once  to  the  despair  of  night, 

When  all  mankind  alike  is  perfected, 

Equal  in  full-blown  powers — then,  not  till  then, 
I  say,  begins  man’s  general  infancy.” 


[16] 


CHAPTER  II 


Who  Are  Evolutionists.^ 

I  AM  not  as  muck  interested  in  proving  that 
evolution  is  true  as  I  am  in  showing  that 
evolutionists  are  not  atheists  nor  infidels; 
that  there  is  no  necessary  connection  between 
evolution  and  atheism. 

Two  or  three  men  have  made  themselves  very 
conspicuous  in  this  country  in  their  attempt  to 
cast  a  shadow  upon  the  religious  beliefs  and 
purposes  of  evolutionists.  This  is  a  most  ex¬ 
traordinary  thing.  It  is  impossible  to  under¬ 
stand  the  mental  make-up  of  the  man  who  deals 
out  such  unwarrantable  criticism  against  the 
men  and  women  who  teach  evolution.  Forty 
years  ago  when  the  doctrines  of  evolution  were 
new,  and  their  bearings  on  moral  and  religious 
subjects  not  well  understood,  it  was  not  sur¬ 
prising  that  many  men  and  women  should  have 
manifested  a  hostile  attitude.  But  forty  years 
ago,  evolutionists,  after  a  long  and  very  bitter 


[J7] 


Evolution  and  Beligion 


fight,  won  the  day.  Since  then  there  has  not 
been  a  scientist  of  any  note  who  has  opposed 
the  main  principles  of  evolution.  Nearly  all  the 
universities  and  high  schools  in  Christendom 
are  teaching  it.  Untold  thousands  of  ministers 
of  all  denominations  in  this  country  and  Europe 
are  declaring  their  belief  in  it,  and  have  said 
over  and  over  again  that  they  see  in  the  doctrine 
the  greater  thought  of  God,  a  more  wondrous 
universe,  the  greater  sanctions  of  law,  and  the 
ceasless  presence  and  power  of  the  Immanent 
God.  I  am  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  majori¬ 
ties  are  not  always  in  the  right;  but  when  a 
majority  of  our  leading  ministers  espouse  a 
cause,  seeing  in  it  plenty  of  room  for  God, 
surely  the  implications  of  atheism  should  not 
be  allowed  in  the  discussion. 

Furthermore  there  are  millions  of  laymen 
and  laywomen,  graduates  of  our  colleges,  and 
some  who  are  not  graduates  who  believe  the 
doctrine.  They  are  among  the  best  workers  in 
the  churches,  interested  in  all  social  betterment; 
their  lives  are  dominated  by  high  moral  and 
spiritual  ideals,  and  they  do  not  forget  to  pray 
in  deep  sincerity  for  Divine  wisdom  and 

[18] 


Who  Are  Evohitionistsf 


strength  to  help  them  live  this  life  aright.  If 
they  are  your  neighbors  ancl  friends,  and  if  you 
are  honest  and  fair  in  your  judgment  you  are 
bound  to  say  that  these  are  men  and  women 
in  whom  there  is  no  guile.  I  believe  Jesus 
knew  what  he  was  talking  about  when  He  said : 
“By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.  Men 
do  not  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  nor  figs  of 
thistles.  ”  Judged  by  this  rule  it  is  easy  to 
believe  that  the  lives  of  these  men  and  women 
have  been  touched  by  the  power  of  God.  They 
do  not  parade  their  religious  experiences  before 
men.  The  deepest  experiencs  of  the  soul  are 
the  ones  about  which  most  people  are  apt  to 
be  silent.  Some  experiences  are  too  sacred  to 
talk  about  much,  yet  some  of  these  men  and 
women  who  believe  in  evolution  have  declared 
and  rejoiced  in  the  truth  that  God  has  come  into 
their  lives,  and  has  lie^ed  them  to  battle  suc¬ 
cessfully  against  the  temptations  and  hardships 
of  life. 

Over  and  over  they  are  saying: 

“ Without  Thee,  nothing  is  strong,  nothing  holy.” 

‘  ‘  In  finding  Thee  are  all  things  ronncl  us  found ; 

In  losing  Thee  are  all  things  lost  besides.” 

O] 


Evolution  and  Eeligion 


How  inexplicable  it  is,  therefore,  that  some 
men  will  go  before  legislatures  and  congrega¬ 
tions,  and  say  these  men  and  women  are  athe¬ 
ists,  infidels,  the  corruptors  of  our  youth! 

Thousands  of  men  and  women  who  teach 
evolution  are  mothers  and  fathers.  They  are  as 
much  interested  in  the  moral  and  religious  wel¬ 
fare  of  their  children  and  their  neighbors  ’ 
children  as  any  one  can  be.  They  know  the  bear¬ 
ings  of  scientific  teaching  on  the  lives  of  people, 
and  it  is  unthinkable  that  they  would  persis¬ 
tently  teach  that  which  is  subversive  of  good 
morals. 

Let  us  consider  the  utterances  of  some  of  the 
scientists  and  ministers  who  have  written  on 
the  subject.  Let  us  begin  with  Darwin.  Darwin 
has  been  singled  out  by  anti-evolutionists  as  the 
chief  sinner,  the  one  above  all  others  upon 
whose  head  should  be  poured  the  peoples’ 
‘ 1  vials  of  wrath.’ ’ 

It  would  be  amusing  if  it  were  not  a  serious 
subject  the  way  some  people  “hit  Darwin.” 
They  seem  to  think  that  if  they  could  just  get 
Darwin  out  of  the  way  there  would  be  no  evo¬ 
lution  or  it  would  be  so  emasculated  that  it 


[20] 


Who  Are  Evolutionists  f 


could  do  no  harm!  All  of  this  proceeds  from 
erroneous  conceptions  of  what  Darwinism  is 
and  of  the  attitude  of  other  scientists  toward 
his  teaching.  There  is  no  evolutionist,  past  or 
present,  who  does  not  teach  with  Darwin  the 
origin  of  species  by  “  descent  with  modifica¬ 
tions.”  All  believe  with  him  that  there  is  an 
indefinite  variation  of  plant  and  animal  forms ; 
that  there  is  a  struggle  for  existence,  and  that 
the  fittest  survives.  Whether  Darwin’s  theory 
of  “natural  selection”  accounts  for  the  origin 
of  species  better  than  Romanes  theory  of 
“physiological  selection”  is  a  question  upon 
which  scientists  are  divided;  but  they  are  unani¬ 
mous  in  their  belief  in  the  fundamental  prin¬ 
ciple  that  all  higher  forms  have  come  from 
lower  forms  by  descent  with  modifications. 

Therefore,  to  try  to  destroy  evolution  by 
showing  that  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion 
among  evolutionists  as  to  the  factors  which  give 
rise  to  species  is  as  futile  as  it  is  to  try  to  prove 
that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  Christianity  by 
pointing  out  some  of  the  irreconcilable  differ¬ 
ences  between  different  denominations  of  Chris¬ 
tians.  Whatever  may  be  their  differences  as 

[21] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


to  baptism,  church  government,  atonement  or 
what  not,  they  are  all  agreed  that  Jesus  is  their  j 
Leader  or  their  Christ,  and  that  constitutes 
Christianity. 

If  you  throw  away  Darwin’s  theory  of  the 
“Survival  of  the  Fittest”  or  “Natural  Selec¬ 
tion”  as  an  insufficient  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  species  —  and  quite  a  number  of  evolutionists 
have  never  believed  that  theory  —  the  great 
principles  of  evolution  still  remain,  the  origin 
of  all  forms  from  lower  forms,  according  to 
well-established  natural  laws,  and  by  means  of 
forces  that  reside  in  the  organism.  Remember, 
also,  that  the  doctrine  of  “Natural  Selection”  is 
only  one  of  many  factors  or  causes  that  give 
rise  to  species. 

Let  us  examine  some  of  Darwin’s  utterances 
with  respect  to  his  beliefs  in  primary  causes  — 
or  God  behind  physical  phenomena.  In  his 
Descent  of  Man  speaking  of  the  slow  growth 
of  moral  and  religious  ideas,  he  says:  “The 
grand  idea  of  God  hating  sin  and  loving  right¬ 
eousness  was  unknown  during  primeval  times.” 
“With  the  more  civilized  races,  the  conviction 
of  the  existence  of  an  all-seeing  Deity  has  had 


[22] 


Who  Are  Evolutionists f 


a  potent  influence  on  the  advance  of  morality.” 
(Descent  of  Man,  page  626,  second  edition.) 

In  speaking  of  evolution  Mr.  Darwin  says : 
“There  is  a  grandeur  in  this  view  of  life,  with 
its  several  powers,  having  been  originally 
breathed  by  the  Creator  into  a  few  forms  or 
into  one;  and  that,  whilst  this  planet  has  gone 
cycling  on  according  to  the  fixed  laws  of  gravity, 
from  so  simple  a  beginning  endless  forms  most 
beautiful  and  most  wonderful  have  been  and 
are  being  evolved.” 

Let  us  be  honest  with  the  facts  and  with  these 
words.  Is  there  anything  atheistic  in  these 
utterances?  Anything  that  could  debauch  the 
morals  of  people  or  throw  a  shadow  on  their 
spiritual  aspirations? 

Some  anti-evolutionists  say  that  at  the  close 
of  Darwin’s  life  he  professed  not  to  know  any¬ 
thing  about  the  existence  of  God.  I  shall  dis¬ 
cuss  this  in  another  chapter.  It  will  be  seen 
that  nothing  that  he  said  destroys  the  value  of 
these  plain  wholesome  utterances. 

Next  we  will  consider  the  position  of  Huxley. 
Huxley  was  a  staunch  supporter  of  Darwin,  and 
did  more  than  any  man  in  Europe  or  America 

[23] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


to  popularize  evolution.  He  was  fiercely  at¬ 
tacked  by  some  of  bis  conservative  countrymen, 
mostly  ministers,  and  he  replied  in  plain  and 
vigorous  terms.  He  was  called  atheist,  agnos¬ 
tic,  infidel.  Without  any  doubt  he  was  not  as 
outspoken  in  his  belief  of  God  as  was  LeConte, 
Fisk,  Drummond,  and  others.  But  his  agnosti¬ 
cism  was  more  of  the  type  of  Job’s,  who  asked, 
chapter  11 :7 :  “  Canst  thou  by  searching  find 
out  God?  Canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty 
unto  perfection?” 

Would  you  stigjnatize  Job  as  an  atheist? 
Huxley  and  a  great  many  others  have  the 
modesty  of  Job  and  Paul.  They  do  not  pretend 
to  know  God  unto  perfection.  Their  attitude 
toward  some  of  the  great  questions  of  life  is 
in  keeping  with  I  Corinthians,  13:12:  “Now 
we  see  through  a  glass  darkly;  now  we  know 
in  part.” 

Huxley  was  agnostic,  however,  in  only  some 
things.  Nothing  is  truer  than  the  fact  that  all 
educated  people  are  agnostic  in  some  things.  Is 
there  any  one  who  knows  God  unto  perfection; 
who  does  not  know  in  part,  and  who  never  sees 
through  a  glass  darkly? 


[^4] 


Who  Are  Evolutionists f 


The  honest,  competent  searcher  after  truth 
sometimes  gets  to  the  place  where  the  only  hon¬ 
est  thing  he  can  say  is :  I  do  not  know. 

But  Huxley’s  attitude  towards  God  and  re¬ 
ligion  was  not  altogether  doubtful  and  negative. 
He  said  some  of  the  best  things  on  the  subject 
of  religion  and  morality  that  have  been  said 
by  scientists  or  by  any  other  writers.  Take  this 
quotation:  “ Science  seems  to  me  to  teach  in 
the  highest  and  strongest  manner  the  Christian 
conception  of  the  entire  surrender  to  the  will 
of  God.” 

Anti-evolutionist,  be  honest  with  these  words : 
is  there  any  atheism  in  them?  Can  you  find 
any  fault  with  them? 

His  biographer  says  that  in  1885  Huxley 
formulated  “the  perfect  ideal  of  religion”  in 
a  passage  which  has  become  almost  famous, 
namely:  “In  the  8th  century  B.  C.  in  the  heart 
of  a  world  of  idolatrous  polytheists  the  Hebrew 
prophets  put  forth  a  conception  of  religion 
which  appears  to  be  as  wonderful  an  inspiration 
of  genius  as  the  art  of  Pheidias  or  the  science 
of  Aristotle:  ‘And  what  doth  the  Lord  require 


[25] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


of  thee  but  to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to 
walk  humbly  with  thy  God.  ’  ’  ’ 

Again  Huxley  says:  “Atheism  on  purely 
philosophical  grounds  is  untenable.  ”  One  of 
the  greatest  utterances  of  Huxley  is  this:  “But 
if  it  is  certain  that  we  can  have  no  knowledge 
of  the  nature  of  either  matter  or  spirit,  and  that 
the  notion  of  necessity  is  sometimes  illegiti¬ 
mately  thrust  into  the  perfectly  legitimate  con¬ 
ception  of  law,  the  materialistic  position  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  world  hut  matter ,  force, 
and  necessity,  is  as  utterly  devoid  of  justifica¬ 
tion  as  the  most  baseless  of  theological  dog¬ 
mas.”  (Italics  mine.) 

If  materialism  can  get  any  comfort  out  of  that 
statement  it  is  welcome  to  it. 

Huxley  declares  that  “the  order  of  nature 
is  ascertainable  by  our  own  faculties  to  an  ex¬ 
tent  which  is  practically  unlimited,  and  that 
our  volition  counts  for  something  as  a  condition 
of  the  course  of  events.”  (Italics  mine.)  Lay 
Sermons  and  Addresses  —  pages  144-145.  This 
is  a  most  significant  utterance,  and  its  force  is 
needed  today.  Today  we  need  to  emphasize  the 
great  truth — “that  our  volition  counts  for  sonie- 


[26] 


Who  Are  Evolutionists? 


thing  as  a  condition  of  the  course  of  events.  ” 

A  great  lack  upon  the  part  of  the  people  today 

is  trained  wills,  the  practice  of  that  self-con- 

straint  which  will  enable  a  man  to  round  out 

his  own  life  beautifully  and  heroically,  and  give 

himself  unselfishlv  to  the  service  of  others.  A 

*/ 

great  curse  is  on  the  world  today  because  so 
many  people  are  doing  that  which  is  right  in 
their  own  eyes  utterly  unmindful  and  indifferent 
to  the  rights  of  others.  Murders,  drunkenness, 
and  reckless  driving  which  often  end  in  death 
proceed  from  a  lack  of  constraint,  a  lack  of 
will-power,  as  well  as  from  brutal  selfishness. 

If  Huxley  said  some  pretty  strong  things 
against  the  theology  of  his  day,  remember,  it 
was  against  only  one  phase  of  theology,  a  phase 
that  is  unreasonable  and  absurd.  Some  of  that 
unreasonableness  in  theology  we  find  at  the 
present  time.  For  instance :  if  men  represented 
God’s  dealing  -with  man  in  a  manner  that  is 
more  applicable  to  a  demon  than  a  God,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  Huxley  should  say  I  do  not  be¬ 
lieve  in  that  kind  of  God  nor  that  kind  of 
religion. 

The  representations  of  God  as  if  he  were  a 

[27] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


demon  are  largely  responsible  for  much  of  the 
agnosticism  in  the  world,  or  the  indifference 
to  the  church,  and  ministers  are  partly  to  blame. 
In  Boston  some  years  ago  a  certain  minister 
visited  the  church  of  “Father  Taylor,’ ’  of  the 
Seaman’s  Mission,  and  was  invited  to  preach. 
He  preached  a  kind  of  sermon  you  sometimes 
hear  today,  in  which  he  made  it  appear  that 
God  is  a  Being  more  of  wrath  than  of  justice 
and  mercy,  and  consigns  more  than  three- 
fourths  of  the  human  race  to  an  everlasting  hell. 
When  the  sendee  was  over  he  asked  Father 
Taylor  what  he  thought  of  the  sermon.  Father 
Taylor  replied:  “My  brother,  your  God  is  my 
devil.  ’  ’ 

Some  ministers  represent  God  in  such  terms 
today;  consider  this  declaration  of  Dr.  I.  M. 
Haldeman,  a  prominent  New  York  minister,  as 
reported  in  the  Literary  Digest:  “Christ  is 
coming  with  the  eye  of  one  who  is  aroused  and 
indignant,  in  whose  Being  beats  the  pulse  of  a 
hot  anger.  He  comes  forth  as  one  who  no  longer 
seeks  either  friendship  or  love . His  gar¬ 

ments  are  dipped  in  blood,  the  blood  of  others. 
He  descends  that  He  may  shed  the  blood  of 


[28] 


Who  Are  Evolutionists  f 


men.  He  will  enunciate  his  claims  by  terror  and 
might.  He  will  write  it  in  the  blood  of  his  foes. 
*  *  *  He  comes  to  his  glory,  not  as  the  Saviour, 
meek  and  lowly,  not  through  the  suffrage  of 
willing  hearts  and  plaudits  of  a  welcoming 
world,  but  as  a  king,  an  autocrat,  a  despot, 
through  the  gushing  blood  of  a  trampled 
world.  ’  ’ 

There  is  much  more  to  the  same  effect. 

Note  the  blood-thirstiness,  the  wrath,  the 
mercilessness  of  this  supposed  king  and  auto¬ 
crat.  Is  there  any  wonder  that  men  of  science 
and  many  thousands  of  others  who  are  not 
scientists,  men  in  all  walks  of  life,  men  of  com¬ 
mon  sense  and  good  will,  refuse  to  believe  in 
such  a  religion?  It  is  just  such  horrid  descrip¬ 
tions  of  religion  as  referred  to  above  that  have 
driven  many  people  to  antagonism  or  indiffer¬ 
ence  to  the  church. 

Huxley  was  scorned,  criticised,  and  con¬ 
demned  by  just  such  narrowness  and  unreason¬ 
ableness  in  his  day;  but  in  spite  of  it  he 
remained  a  friend  to  ministers,  he  believed  in 
the  church,  spoke  good  strong  words  in  behalf 
of  morality,  and  made  it  as  plain  as  words  can 

[29] 


Evolution  and  Religion 

make  it  that  he  did  not  believe  in  scientific  ma¬ 
terialism. 

Another  popular  writer  on  evolution  was 
Professor  Henry  Drummond.  No  fair-minded 
man  who  knows  the  meaning  of  words  can  read 
his  Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World,  The 
Ascent  of  Man,  The  Greatest  Thing  in  the 
World  and  Other  Addresses,  and  then  say  he 
was  an  atheist  and  a  traducer  of  the  morals  of 
the  people.  Unless  men  read  the  works  of  evo¬ 
lutionists,  and  note  their  statements  of  belief  in 
God,  morality,  and  religion  they  have  no  moral 
right  to  sit  in  judgment  on  these  works:  they 
have  no  moral  right  to  class  these  men  with 
atheists,  haters  of  God  and  religion.  Our  courts 
of  law  would  not  think  of  condemning  a  man 
without  a  hearing.  Let  us  not  condemn  Darwin, 
Huxley,  Drummond,  LeConte,  and  others  with¬ 
out  first  carefully  reading  their  writings.  The 
editor  of  one  of  our  leading  papers  says  it 
seems  that  some  people  ‘ ‘would  rather  rave 
than  read.” 

Let  me  make  two  brief  quotations  from  Pro¬ 
fessor  Drummond  which  shows  the  trend  of  his 
thought  on  evolution  and  religion :  In  his 

[30] 


Who  Are  Evolutionists? 


Natural  Laiv  in  the  Spiritual  World,  page  30, 
he  says:  4 ‘No  single  fact  in  science  has  ever 
discredited  a  fact  in  religion.  ” 

In  the  chapter  on  “ Involution  ’  ’  in  The  Ascent 
of  Man,  page  343,  he  says:  “  Christianity  struck 
into  the  evolutionary  process  with  no  noise  or 
shock;  it  upset  nothing  of  all  that  had  been 
done;  it  took  all  the  natural  foundations  pre¬ 
cisely  as  it  found  them;  it  adopted  man’s  body, 
mind  and  soul  at  the  exact  level  where  organic 
evolution  was  at  work  upon  them ;  it  carried  on 
the  building  by  slow  and  gradual  modifications ; 
and,  through  processes,  governed  by  rational 
laws,  it  put  the  finishing  touches  to  the  ascent 
of  man.  ’  ’ 

Is  there  any  opposition  to  religion  in  this! 
All  his  works  are  full  of  the  reverent  spirit, 
a  profound  interest  in  all  that  is  beautiful  and 
good. 

Let  us  consider  the  writings  on  evolution  of 
some  of  our  countrymen  in  America.  Let  us 
begin  with  John  Fiske,  for  a  number  of  years 
a  teacher  in  Harvard  University,  and  after¬ 
wards  in  Washington  University,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
His  writings  on  scientific  and  religious  subjects 


[3i] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


have  been  widely  read  in  this  country  and 
Europe.  They  are  deservedly  popular.  In  his 
books  on  Outline  of  Cosmic  Philosophy ,  Based 
on  the  Doctrine  of  Evolution.  (2  vols.)  The 
Destiny  of  Man  Viewed  in  the  Light  of  His 
Origin ,  and  in  his  other  works  he  sets  forth  his 
beliefs  about  natural  laws,  the  idea  of  God,  and 
the  destiny  of  the  soul  of  man.  Running 
through  it  all  is  a  healthy,  religious  spirit.  Over 
and  over  again  he  says  in  effect  and  in  words : 
“Evolution  is  God’s  way  of  doing  things.” 

Another  great  and  greatly  honored  teacher 
of  evolution  was  Joseph  LeConte.  Born  in 
Liberty  County,  Georgia,  a  graduate  of  Frank¬ 
lin  College,  Ga.,  and  afterwards  of  Harvard 
College,  he  was  for  a  number  of  years  a  teacher 
in  his  Alma  Mater,  and  afterwards  gave  many 
years  of  his  life  as  Professor  of  Geology  in 
the  University  of  California.  His  most  noted 
works  are  Elements  of  Geology  and  Evolution 
and  its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought.  The 
latter  is  one  of  the  greatest  books  on  theistic 
evolution  in  existence.  No  one  who  wants  to 
know  the  bearing  of  science  on  religious  thought 
should  fail  to  read  this  book  that  is  found  in 


[32] 


Who  Are  Evolutionists? 


most  public  libraries.  Dr.  Bucldiam  in  his  very 
interesting  little  book  Religion  as  Experience , 
pages  82-83,  says:  “It  is  already  clear  that  the 
name  of  Joseph  LeConte  is  to  grow  more  and 
more  luminous  and  his  works  are  to  follow  him 
with  the  increasing  influence  of  an  assured  rep¬ 
utation.  *  *  *  A  book  written  at  the  suggestion 
of  Henry  Ward  Beecher  which  won  the  ap¬ 
proval,  on  the  side  of  science,  of  Professor 
Romanes,  and  on  that  of  religion  of  Bishop 
Gore,  has  sufficient  external  commendation. 
But,  far  more  than  that,  it  has  the  almost 
unique  distinction  of  combining  a  thoroughly 
comprehensible  interpretation  of  evolution  and 
a  clear,  free,  and  at  times,  profound  treatise  on 
theology.”  A  quotation  will  give  you  some 
idea  of  the  spirit  of  its  author.  LeConte  insists 
that  whenever  we  get  behind  physical  phenom¬ 
ena  we  find  psychical  phenomena.  Is  it  unrea¬ 
sonable  to  believe  that  behind  all  physical  phe¬ 
nomena  there  is  mind,  Soul!  In  Evolution  and 
Religious  Thought ,  page  316,  he  says:  “In  the 
only  place  where  we  do  get  behind  physical 
phenomena,  namely,  the  brain,  we  find  psy¬ 
chical  phenomena.  Are  we  not  justified,  then, 


[33] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


in  concluding  that  in  all  cases  the  psychical  lies 
behind  the  physical  ?” 

His  chapters  on  the  “  Relation  of  Evolution 
to  Materialism, ’ ’  “The  Relation  of  God  to 
Nature, ”  “The  Relation  of  God  to  Man”  are 
all  that  any  theist  could  ask  of  evolution. 

With  the  possible  exception  of  one  or  two 
teachers  of  biology  in  America,  the  whole 
teaching  force,  many  thousands,  can  be  put 
down  as  favoring  a  theistic,  a  spiritual,  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  origin  of  the  universe  over 
against  scientific  materialism.  This  is  a  plain 
matter  of  counting  noses.  Some  months  ago 
Dr.  Sherwood  Eddy,  a  noted  missionary  and 
religious  worker  among  college  students,  said 
in  a  public  address:  “We  have  to  believe  in 
evolution  because  there  are  so  many  facts  in 
support  of  it.  I  believe  in  God,  Christ,  the 
Bible,  and  also  in  evolution.  As  far  as  I  know 
all  botanists,  zoologists,  doctors,  and  preachers 
believe  in  evolution.” 

But  it  may  be  asked:  Have  there  not  been 
some  scientists  who  have  taught  that  there  is 
no  need  for  the  conception  of  God  behind  physi¬ 
cal  phenomena?  Undoubtedly,  yes.  In  every 


[34] 


Who  Are  Evolutionists ? 


generation  since  evolution  lias  been  advocated 
as  the  explanation  of  the  origin  of  animal  forms, 
including  man,  a  few  scientists  have  taken  the 
atheistic  view.  But  the  overwhelming  majority 
have  expressed  themselves  against  materialism 
and  atheism.  No  one  has  put  the  case  stronger 
than  Huxley :  ‘ ‘  The  materialistic  position  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  world  but  matter,  force, 
and  necessity,  is  as  utterly  devoid  of  justifica¬ 
tion  as  the  most  baseless  of  theological  dog¬ 
mas.’’  This  is  the  view  of  scientists  today  with 
one  or  two  exceptions.  But  what  of  these  ex¬ 
ceptions  ?  Is  it  fair,  is  it  reasonable  to  denounce 
as  atheistic  a  theory  that  has  never  been  called 
atheistic  except  by  a  very  few  scientists  ?  When 
the  rank  and  file  of  scientists  in  every  genera¬ 
tion  have  declared  that  evolution  is  not  ma¬ 
terialism  nor  atheism;  that  spirit,  not  matter 
is  the  power  behind  the  laws  of  nature,  is  it  a 
fair  way  of  dealing  with  the  facts  to  say  that  a 
few  scientists  must  decide  the  question  in  favor 

of  atheism?  Do  we  act  that  wav  in  other  im- 

«/ 

portant  matters? 

Without  any  sort  of  doubt  the  vast  majority 
of  women  are  good  at  heart  and  in  practice. 

[35] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


Shall  we  throw  suspicion  upon  the  whole  sis¬ 
terhood  because  some  few  are  worse  than 
demons  ? 

I  have  been  intimately  associated  with  min¬ 
isters  of  religion  for  forty  years.  For  strength 
of  character,  moral  earnestness,  pure  hearted¬ 
ness  and  serviceableness  to  the  community 
there  is  no  class  of  men  superior.  None. 
Are  you  going  to  throw  the  whole  fraternity 
overboard  because  a  few  of  them  are  black 
sheep?  Are  you  going  to  stigmatize  as  athe¬ 
ists,  infidels,  the  whole  teaching  force  in  our 
high  schools  and  universities,  besides  thou¬ 
sands  of  ministers,  laymen  and  laywomen  who 
are  evolutionists  because  a  few,  a  very  few, 
scientists  are  atheists?  Be  honest  with  the 
facts.  Be  fair  in  your  arguments. 

Hundreds  of  ministers  and  laymen  in  every 
denomination  in  this  country  have  written  books 
and  published  sermons  to  show  the  wonder  and 
the  beauty  of  God’s  work  in  gradually  develop¬ 
ing  the  higher  forms  of  life  from  the  lower. 
In  the  face  of  all  these  facts  how  can  any  fair- 
minded,  educated  man  say  that  evolution  is  an¬ 
other  name  for  atheism? 


[36] 


Who  Are  Evolutionists  t 


Call  to  mind  the  long  list  of  presidents  of 
our  universities,  professors  in  our  theological 
seminaries,  honored  and  very  serviceable  min¬ 
isters  in  the  prominent  pulpits  of  the  country, 
besides  many  thousands  of  church  workers  in 
all  denominations.  How  reckless  must  be  the 
man  who  could  say  that  these  are  disbelievers 
in  God  and  the  Bible,  and  are  undermining  the 
morals  of  our  youth! 

Who  are  evolutionists  ?  I  have  shown  in  this 
chapter  most  conclusively  from  their  own  writ¬ 
ings  that  they  are  not  atheists  nor  the  corrup- 
tors  of  morals.  Not  President-Emeritus  Eliot 
and  President  Lowell  of  Harvard  University, 
nor  Faunce  of  Brown,  nor  Butler  of  Columbia, 
nor  Professor  Conklin  of  Princeton,  nor  Need¬ 
ham  of  Cornell,  nor  Spangler  of  West  Virginia, 
among  scientists;  nor  Rev.  Drs.  Abbott,  Sam¬ 
uel  A.  Eliot,  of  Boston,  Cadman,  Forsdick, 
Veder,  among  Protestant  ministers;  nor  the 
leaders  of  the  Catholic  church,  many  of  whom 
are  evolutionists ;  not  Rabbis  Wise,  Fineshriber, 
Calisch  and  Kohler,  among  our  Jewish  breth¬ 
ren;  nor  a  splendid  array  of  good  men  and 
women  in  the  humbler  walks  of  life.  None  of 


[37] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


these  are  atheists  nor  the  corruptors  of  our 
youth. 

Who  are  evolutionists!  I  challenge  compar¬ 
ison.  Look  around  you  in  any  community  and 
compare  the  men  and  women  who  are  evolu¬ 
tionists  with  those  who  are  not.  In  intelli¬ 
gence,  character,  godliness,  and  good  works 
they  are  in  no  respect  inferior  to  their  brethren 
who  are  not  evolutionists. 

In  view  of  these  quotations  and  other  facts 
the  man  who  can  say  that  evolutionists  are 
atheists  can  say  anything  he  wishes  to  say. 
What  he  says  is  not  the  reasoned  deduction 
from  facts  and  principles,  but  is  predominentlv 
a  matter  of  will. 

Herman  Lotze,  a  great  scientist  and  scholar, 
voices  the  sentiments  of  evolutionists  in  this 
splendid  thought  : 

4  ‘  Love  for  the  living  God,  and  longing  to  be 
approved  by  him,  is  the  scientific  as  it  is  the 
Christian  basis  of  morality;  and  science  can 
not  find  a  firmer  basis  nor  life  a  surer.  ” 


[38] 


CHAPTER  III 


WHO  APE  THE  ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS? 


THE  men  and  women  who  oppose  evolution 
are  usually  good,  honest,  sincere  people. 
I  do  not  question  their  motive  nor  their 
sincerity.  I  know  thousands  of  them,  and  I 
know  them  to  be  as  pure-hearted,  as  loyal  to 
the  great  principles  of  righteousness,  as  good 
neighbors  and  friends  as  one  can  find  anywhere 
on  earth.  But  they  are  not  a  whit  better  than 
other  people  who  do  not  believe  as  they  do,  and 
they  have  no  special  faculty  by  which  to  discover 
the  truth. 

Some  of  them  are  making  claims  or  implica¬ 
tions  which  the  facts  do  not  justify.  They  are 
holding  out  the  idea  that  they,  and  they  alone, 
are  peculiarly  the  great  champions  of  truth,  the 
great  lovers  and  defenders  of  the  Bible,  and 
that  they  are  trying  to  save  the  youth  of  the 
land,  while  evolutionists  are  doing  just  the 
opposite. 


[39] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


Who  are  these  men  that  are  making  such 
mighty  claims?  Let  us  look  at  the  subject  in 
kindness  and  fairness.  Let  us  consider  their 
past  and  present  achievements,  and  see  if  there 
is  any  reason  to  believe  that  they  are  especially 
endowed  with  powers  that  enable  them  to  ap¬ 
prehend  the  truth  more  clearly  than  their  fel¬ 
lows  on  the  other  side.  Is  there  among  these 
opponents  of  evolution  any  one  who  has  accom¬ 
plished  anything  peculiarly  great  in  statesman¬ 
ship?  Are  there  any,  who,  after  thirty  or 
forty  years  of  earnest  study  of  science  have 
written  any  great  works  on  science  ?  If  so,  what 
are  the  names  of  the  men,  and  what  books  did 
they  write?  If  there  are  such  serviceable  men 
they  ought  to  be  known,  and  people  ought  to 
have  the  opportunity  to  read  their  books.  Look 
into  these  questions,  and  answer  them  at  the 
bar  of  unprejudiced  reason. 

When  you  study  these  men  I  think  you  will 
find  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  they  have  any 
peculiarly  great  endowments  that  enable  them 
to  see  and  understand,  better  than  others,  the 
great  problems  which  we  are  discussing.  They 
have  not  given  any  special,  systematic  study 

[40] 


Who  Are  the  Anti-Evolutionists  f 


to  these  subjects,  and  they  have  not  had  any 
training  in  the  laboratories. 

All  that  can  be  truthfully  said  of  the  foremost 
of  these  anti-evolutionists  is  that  they  are  men 
of  good  minds  and  of  excellent  moral  character. 

The  anti-evolutionists  may  be  divided  info 
several  classes.  The  first  class  is  a  very  large 
one,  who  have  not  studied  the  subject  at  all, 
and  do  not  claim  to  have  studied  it.  They  have 
not  had  the  time  for  study,  or  they  have  not 
taken  the  time  to  give  to  a  candid,  serious  study 
of  the  claims  of  evolution.  All  they  have  ever 
heard  is  from  some  minister  or  lecturer  who  is 
prejudiced  on  the  subject,  and  who  has  no  claim 
to  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  subject.  The 
sum  and  substance  of  what  the  people  have 
heard  on  the  subject  is  this:  “I  don’t  believe 
that  I  am  descended  from  a  monkey.”  “The 
Bible  says  God  made  man  in  his  own  image, 
and  I  believe  the  Bible.” 

Evolutionists  as  well  as  anti-evolutionists 
believe  that  man  was  made  in  the  image  of 
God.  The  question  at  issue  is,  what  was  God’s 
method  of  making  man’s  body!  The  supreme 
aim  of  the  ministers  and  lecturers  in  their 


[41] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


anti-evolution  attacks  seems  to  be  to  raise  a 
laugh  about  “Our  monkey  ancestors  that  once 
had  tails.  ’ ’  This  is  the  stock-in-trade  argument 
also  of  some  newspapers.  Cut  out  the  ridicule 
and  very  little  is  left.  But  evolution  can  not  be 
laughed  out  of  court.  The  world  must  meet  the 
issues  with  sober  arguments. 

There  is  another  class  of  objectors  to  evo¬ 
lution.  These  oppose  it  because  the  doctrine 
is  new,  comparatively  new.  Opposition  to  the 
new  and  untried  is  commendable,  if  it  is  not 
carried  too  far.  The  Bible  injunction,  “Prove 
all  things.  Hold  fast  to  that  which  is  good,”  is  a 
very  wholesome  principle.  But  to  oppose  the 
new  simply  because  it  is  new,  and  to  refuse  to 
look  into  the  claims  of  the  new  is  not  wholesome. 
The  human  race  has  progressed  in  knowledge 

and  in  material  resources  because  thev  dared 

%/ 

to  try  out  the  new.  We  are  trying  out  the  new 
every  day  in  other  departments  of  life.  In  the 
realm  of  science  we  will  continue  to  try  out  the 
new  in  our  search  for  the  hidden  truth  of  God. 
Einstein’s  theory  of  the  relativity  of  space  and 
a  limited  universe  is  something  new  —  some 
parts  of  it.  Governments  are  today  spending 

[42] 


Who  Are  the  Anti-Evolutionists ? 


thousands  of  dollars  in  trying  out  the  theory. 
Let  us  not  close  the  doors  of  our  minds  to 
the  new.  The  supreme  thought  ought  to  be, 
is  it  true? 

There  is  another  class  of  anti-evolutionists 
who  have  given  the  subject  some  thought,  but 
who  are  not  convinced.  They  believe  sincerely 
that  species  is  the  limit  of  variation,  and  that 
God  made  all  the  species  by  special  acts  of  cre¬ 
ation.  But  they  are  not  bitter  against  their 
opponents.  They  are  willing  to  live  and  let  live. 
They  believe  that  the  evolutionist  is  sincere, 
intelligent,  and  honest  in  his  beliefs,  and  that 
his  beliefs  do  not  necessarily  eliminate  God 
from  the  universe.  They  believe  that  evolution¬ 
ists  are  the  children  of  God,  and  heirs  to  the 
same  inheritance  they  claim  for  themselves. 

There  is  still  another  class  of  anti-evolution¬ 
ists.  I  hope  it  is  a  very  small  class.  They  are 
very  bitter,  unreasonable,  and  uncharitable.  It 
is  the  same  type  of  man  that  killed  witches  in 
New  England,  drove  the  Baptists  out  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts  into  Bhode  Island,  and  the  Quakers 
into  other  parts  of  the  country. 

A  certain  man  belonging  to  this  type  of 


[43] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


anti-evolutionists  said  of  a  minister  who  is  an 
evolutionist:  “Such  as  he  ought  to  have  kero¬ 
sene  poured  all  over  him,  and  a  lighted  match 
stuck  to  him.  ” 

A  certain  woman  wrote  to  a  teacher  who  had 
spoken  in  favor  of  evolution:  “"When  you  die 
I  hope  you  will  go  to  hell, and  I  hope  your  soul 
will  shrivel  up  like  a  drop  of  water  on  a  red- 
hot  stove.”  Wonderful!  Wonderful!  “How 
can  such  wrath  dwell  in  celestial  minds!” 

From  a  candid  study  of  this  phase  of  the 
subject  we  can  see  clearly  that  the  anti-evolu¬ 
tionist  has  no  vantage  ground  from  which  to 
form  his  opinions  on  the  subject.  He  is  not 
better  educated,  and  he  is  not  better  trained 
than  his  opponents.  His  utterances  proclaim 
the  fact  that  he  has  not  a  better  spirit,  the 
spirit  of  “sweet  reasonableness.”  Therefore, 
let  us  consider  the  subject  on  its  merits.  The 
thing  of  supreme  consideration  is :  What  are 
the  facts?  Is  evolution  true,  or  even  probably 
or  possibly  true? 

Does  it  really  eliminate  God  from  the  uni¬ 
verse? 

Does  it  really  destroy  the  great  foundation 

[44] 


Who  Are  the  Anti-Evolutionists ? 


principles  of  morality  and  religion  which  we 
find  in  the  Bible?  Has  the  anti-evolutionist 
any  more  right  than  the  evolutionist  to  say: 

“Holy  Bible,  book  divine, 

Precious  treasure,  thou  art  mine  ?  ’  ’ 


[45] 


CHAPTER  IV 


EVOLUTION  AND  THE  BIBLE 


WITHOLTT  any  sort  of  doubt  the  Bible 
is  a  great  source  of  morality  and  re¬ 
ligion.  It  is  guiding  millions  of  peo¬ 
ple  on  their  way  toward  God.  It  is  the  way 
of  life  to  the  souls  of  men.  In  addition  to  this 
it  is  wonderfully  interesting  and  beautiful  liter¬ 
ature.  For  these  most  excellent  reasons  every 
lover  of  righteousness,  every  lover  of  the  human 
race  should  feel  it  his  sacred  duty  to  help  keep 
the  Bible  unimpaired  —  keep  it  as  it  is,  the 
greatest  religious  book  of  the  ages. 

I  have  studied  the  Bible  for  forty  years,  and 
have  preached  it  with  all  the  power  of  my  be¬ 
ing.  I  am  a  thorough-going  evolutionist.  I 
have  studied  the  works  of  Historical  Criticism 
of  the  Bible,  and  I  know  the  spirit  of  the  men 
who  have  discussed  it  from  that  standpoint. 
Theirs  is  the  spirit  of  reverence,  the  spirit  of 
the  deepest  appreciation.  I  know  I  am  not 

[46] 


Evolution  and  the  Bible 


mistaken  in  my  own  feelings  about  the  Bible, 
and  I  am  sure  of  the  deep  appreciation  and 
love  of  the  higher  critics.  It  is  not  a  question 
as  to  whether  the  literalists  or  the  higher  critics 
appreciate  the  Bible.  Both  of  them  appreciate 
it.  Both  desire  that  the  Bible  have  its  fullest 
force  on  the  lives  of  men.  It  is  simply  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  which  one  has  seen  the  Bible  in  its 
truest  light  —  in  keeping  with  the  real  facts 
which  we  find  in  the  Bible  itself. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  some  people  having 
been  taught  that  the  Bible  is  literally  true  in 
all  its  parts  and  literally  true  on  all  subjects 
should  look  upon  any  other  interpretation  as 
an  effort  to  discredit  the  Bible,  and  destroy  its 
influence.  They  say  the  Bible  teaches  that  man 
was  “made”  in  the  image  of  God.  For  thou¬ 
sands  of  vears  the  words  “make”  and  “create” 
%/ 

had  no  other  meaning  than  to  bring  into  ex¬ 
istence  with  one’s  hands  in  a  few  minutes,  hours 
or  days.  So  when  evolutionists  began  to  teach 
that  making  and  creating  occupied  untold  ages, 
and  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  assume  that 
God  made  things  with  his  hands  and  fingers,  but 
through  the  laws  of  nature  as  secondary  causes, 

[47] 


Evolution  and  Beligion 


it  is  not  surprising  that  some  people  should  look 
upon  this  view  of  things  as  contrary  to  the 
Bible,  and  a  denial  of  its  truth  and  its  value. 

That  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  Bible 
is  not  true,  not  in  keeping  with  the  statements 
in  the  Bible  itself,  not  in  keeping  with  what 
we  know  of  geography,  geology,  and  astronomy, 
can  be  abundantly  seen  by  careful  study. 

Let  us  consider  the  literalists’  interpretation 
of  that  famous  verse  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis:  “God  created  man  in  his  own  image 
and  likeness.”  What  is  meant  by  the  image  of 
God!  Do  the  literalists  mean  that  God  has  the 
same  bodily  shape  as  man,  only  a  great  deal 
bigger!  Do  they  mean  that  man’s  bodily  shape 

•  is  like  God’s! 

/ 

Is  it  not  a  fact,  rather,  that  the  “image  of 
God”  means  man’s  spiritual  likeness  to  God! 
Man  is  called  “a  child  of  God.”  Is  not  that 
true  because  of  man’s  spiritual  likeness!  Is 
it  not  because  man  is  a  soul;  has  intellect,  sen¬ 
sibility,  and  will;  has  consciousness,  love, 
hatred  of  wrong,  all  of  which  are  kin  to  the 
powers  and  attributes  of  God!  Men  are  no 
longer  speaking  of  God  in  terms  of  bodily  form. 


[48] 


Evolution  and  the  Bible 


“God  is  spirit/’  without  form.  His  existence 
is  co-extensive  with  the  whole  universe. 

The  literalists,  the  anti-evolutionists,  say  the 
Bible  teaches  that  the  world  and  all  things 
therein  were  made  in  six  days  of  twenty-four 
hours,  about  five  thousand  years  ago,  and  that, 
therefore,  the  scientists  are  doing  a  wicked 
thing  to  teach  that  the  earth  is  millions  of  years 
old,  and  men  hundreds  of  thousands  of  years 
old.  They  tell  us  with  sincere  and  pious  ardor 
that  when  scientists  teach  doctrines  that  con¬ 
tradict  the  Bible  we  must  follow  the  Bible,  not 
books  on  science.  That  sounds  very  religious 
and  “safe.”  That  argument  had  a  great  deal 
more  force  and  pertinency  in  the  infancy  of 
science  when  the  only  way  of  interpreting  the 
Bible  was  to  look  upon  all  its  statements  as 
literal,  scientific,  and  historical  truth.  But  how 
educated  men  can,  today,  advise  people  to  take 
the  Bible  view  of  creation  instead  of  the  scien¬ 
tific  view  is  beyond  my  comprehension.  In  the 
history  of  man  there  is  no  truth  plainer  than 
this :  There  is  not  a  statement  in  the  Bible 
about  the  size  of  the  earth,  the  shape  of  the 
earth,  the  revolutions  of  the  earth  and  the 


[49] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


other  planets  and  stars  that  has  not  been 
most  thoroughly  disproved  by  science.  The 
most  certain  fact  in  history  is  that  the  Bible 
is  not  a  handbook  of  science.  There  is  not  a 
book  in  the  Bible  whose  statements  on  scientific 
subjects  are  in  keeping  with  what  we  know  of 
science  today.  The  Bible  was  not  written  in 
the  interest  of  science.  Its  supreme  aim  all  the 
way  through  was  morality  and  religion.  Bible 
writers  took  the  current  view  of  the  shape, 
size,  etc.,  of  the  earth  and  of  the  origin  of  man. 
But  note  this  difference :  when  they  wrote  about 
origins  they  had  a  higher  and  nobler  vision  of 
truth.  Take,  for  instance,  the  first  and  second 
chapters  of  Genesis.  It  seems  on  the  face  of 
it  that  the  editor  who  put  together  these  two 
different  accounts  of  creation  was  not  interested 
in  scientific  or  historic  accuracy.  These  in¬ 
accuracies  are  on  the  face  of  these  chapters. 
You  do  not  have  to  resort  to  the  subtilties  of 
the  logician  or  metaphyscian  in  order  to  per¬ 
ceive  them.  On  the  first  day  God  is  said  to  have 
made  light  and  darkness,  and  the  light  he  called 
day,  and  the  darkness  night.  What  do  we 
know  about  day  and  night  except  as  it  relates 

[50] 


Evolution  and  the  Bible 


to  our  planet  turned  to  or  from  the  sun?  And 
yet  we  are  told  that  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars 
were  not  made  until  the  fourth  day.  According 
to  the  first  verse  light  and  darkness,  night  and 
day  existed  without  any  help  from  the  sun. 
According  to  the  second  account  on  the  fourth 
day  light  and  darkness,  night  and  day  existed 
because  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars. 

Bead  these  different  accounts  slowly,  and 
carefully,  and  form  your  own  opinion  of  the 
facts. 

According  to  the  first  account  in  the  first 
chapter  in  Genesis,  man  was  made  after  the 
lower  animals  were  made.  According  to  the 
second  account  in  the  second  chapter  man  was 
made  first,  the  lower  animals  afterwards. 
Which  account  is  correct? 

These  statements  are  not  quibblings.  They 
are  not  written  in  the  spirit  of  fault-finding. 
Here  are  statements  which  some  people  sup¬ 
pose  were  written  with  scientific  and  historical 
accuracy.  Does  complete  accuracy  seem  to  have 
been  the  ruling  thought  in  the  mind  of  the 
writer?  No,  but  the  two  things  of  supreme  im¬ 
portance  in  this  beautiful  poem  of  creation  are, 


Evolution  and  Religion 

first,  that  God  made  the  heaven  and  the  earth. 
However  it  had  been  made,  whatever  may  have 
been  the  order  of  creation,  (and  the  order  as 
we  have  seen  is  different  in  the  two  accounts), 
but  however  the  order,  God  made  the  heaven 
and  the  earth  and  all  things  therein. 

The  next  great  thought  and  purpose  in  the 
creation  story  was  to  emphasize  and  enforce 
the  sanctity  of  the  Sabbath — a  day  of  rest.  God 
worked  six  days,  and  rested  on  the  Sabbath,  the 
seventh  day,  therefore  the  Sabbath  is  a  holy 
day,  and  must  be  used  as  a  day  of  rest,  be¬ 
cause  God  rested,  and  sanctified  it.  This 
seems  to  have  been  the  thought  in  the  mind  of 
the  writer.  It  is  plain  he  was  not  interested  in 
scientific  or  historical  accuracy  about  light  and 
darkness,  the  order  of  creation,  and  whether  it 
was  really  a  fact  that  day  and  night  were  in¬ 
dependent  of  the  sun,  or  were  caused  by  the 
sun.  This  view  is  supported  by  the  fact  the 
Babylonians  and  Chaldeans  had  accounts  of  cre¬ 
ation  similar  to  the  Genesis  account,  and  their 
accounts  antedate  the  Genesis  account.  In  other 
words  the  Hebrews  borrowed  from  their  Baby¬ 
lonian  and  Chaldean  neighbors.  But  in  the 

[52] 


Evolution  and  the  Bible 


Babylonian  and  Chaldean  accounts  it  was  a 
demi-god,  with  different  names,  sometimes 
called  Thoth,  and  not  the  God  of  the  Universe 
that  made  all  things.  This  great  Hebrew,  how¬ 
ever,  wrote  some  things  finer  and  truer.  He 
said,  not  a  demi-god,  but  the  Supreme  Being 
made  the  heaven  and  the  earth.  This  was  the 
first  clear  utterance  in  the  history  of  man  of 
the  creation  of  all  things  by  the  Supreme  Deity. 
The  account  of  creation  in  the  first  and  second 

i 

chapters  of  Genesis  is  unique  in  the  fact  that 
while  all  other  accounts  were  mixed  with  crude 
heathen  speculations  it  comes  out  clearly  and 
distinctly  in  its  affirmation  of  the  one  Supreme 
God  as  the  ultimate  cause  of  world  phenomena. 

He  meant,  also,  to  glorify  the  Sabbath  day, 
and  enforce  its  observance  by  saying  —  God 
rested  on  the  seventh  day.  It  is  a  holy  day. 

Another  evidence  that  the  Bible  is  not  a  book 
of  science  is  found  in  Lev.  11 :5 :  The  coney,  a 
species  of  hare,  is  referred  to  as  “chewing  its 
cud.”  Writers  on  zoology  declare,  after  most 
careful  investigation,  that  the  coney  does  not 
chew  its  cud,  and  never  did. 

Another  remarkable  declaration  is  in  Joshua 


[53] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


10:13:  “And  the  snn  stood  still,  and  the  moon 
was  stayed,  until  the  people  had  avenged  them¬ 
selves  upon  their  enemies.  Is  not  this  written 
in  the  book  of  Jasher?  So  the  sun  stood  still 
in  the  midst  of  heaven,  and  hasted  not  to  go 
down  about  a  whole  day.” 

It  is  as  plain  as  anything  can  he  that  the  man 
who  wrote  the  above  passage  believed  the  old 
astronomy  which  said  the  sun  revolved  around 
the  earth,  and  that  the  earth  stood  still.  Since 
it  is  a  fact  now  and  was  a  fact  then,  that  day 
and  night  are  caused  by  the  revolution  of  the 
earth  on  its  axis  what  difference  would  it  have 
made  if  the  sun  had  stood  still  not  only  a  whole 
day  but  forty  days?  Day  and  night  would  have 
continued  just  the  same.  The  statement  would 
have  had  some  meaning,  and  would  have  been 
in  keeping  with  the  facts  of  astronomy  if  the 
writer  had  said  God  caused  the  earth  to  stand 
still. 

It  was  nothing  against  the  intelligence  of  the 
writer  of  that  far  away  time  who  believed  that 
the  sun  revolved  around  the  earth.  The  whole 
world  was  in  ignorance  on  the  subject.  But 
what  are  we  to  think  of  the  man  who  today 


[54] 


Evolution  and  the  Bible 


will  defend  the  position  in  Joshua  that  God 
causing  the  sun  to  stand  still  added  about 
twenty-four  hours  of  daylight  to  the  already 
existing  day?  It  is  hard  to  be  patient  with  a 
man  who  shuts  his  eyes  to  obvious  facts  in 
order  to  support  an  imaginary  inerrant  Bible. 

Ah,  there  is  the  rub !  No  matter  how  many 
and  how  plain  the  facts,  the  man  bent  on  proving 
an  inerrant  Bible  simply  brushes  them  aside. 

But  there  are  millions  of  young  men  and 
women,  a  great  number  of  them  college  stu¬ 
dents,  who  are  not  prejudiced  against  facts. 
Our  appeal  is  to  them.  What,  I  ask,  are  the 
real  facts  in  the  case.  What  is  the  truth? 

Another  scientific  inaccuracy  is  found  in 
I  Corinthians,  15 :34,35,  concerning  the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  the  body.  In  spite  of  the 
fact  that  the  man  who  asked  the  question  was 
called  “a  fool,”  nevertheless,  Paul’s  argument 
is  not  convincing.  A  great  many  of  the  best 
Bible  scholars  admit  that  Paul’s  illustration  did 
not  illustrate.  4  ‘  Thou  fool,  that  which  thou 
sowest  is  not  quickened,  except  it  die.”  Just 
the  reverse  of  that  is  true.  If  seed  that  is 
sown  dies  it  never  comes  up.  Every  farmer  and 

[55] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


gardener  knows  this  to  be  trne.  Every  year 
farmers  have  to  replant  some  of  the  seed  they 
have  sown  because  very  damp,  cold  weather 
killed  the  germ. 

Every  one  who  has  studied  the  subject  knows 
these  to  be  the  facts :  when  the  grain  is  planted 
the  warmth  and  moisture  of  the  earth  softens 
the  food  that  surrounds  the  germ  and  enables 
it  to  take  up  the  food  into  itself,  and  grow.  Then 
it  takes  up  whatever  other  food  the  roots  can 
find,  and  the  plant  grows  into  stalk  and  fruit. 
But  the  seed  does  not  die. 

Furthermore,  the  soul  of  man  does  not  grow 
out  of  his  dead  body  like  a  stalk  of  wheat  grows 
out  of  the  seed  that  is  planted.  Many  ministers 
of  all  denominations  say  this  analogy  of  PauPs 
is  a  mistaken  analogy.  The  soul  of  man  exists 
long  before  the  body  dies.  This  is  as  plain  a 
fact  as  anything  can  be. 

The  author  of  the  119th  Psalm  evidently  be¬ 
lieved  that  the  sun  raced  round  the  earth,  for  he 
said:  “The  sun  is  as  a  bridegroom  coming  out 
of  his  chamber,  and  rejoices  as  a  strong  man 
to  run  a  race.” 

Several  hundred  years  ago  when  astronomy 

[56] 


Evolution  and  the  Bible 


was  making  its  great  tight  to  prove  the  earth  is 
round,  the  churchman  said:  “That  can  not  be, 
for  the  Bible  speaks  of  4  the  four  corners  of  the 
earth !  ’  How  can  the  earth  be  round,  and  have 
four  corners  ?”  So  they  stuck  to  the  theory 
that  the  earth  is  flat. 

Read  Dr.  Andrew  D.  White’s  two  volumes 
on  The  Warfare  of  Science  with  Theology,  and 
you  will  be  surprised  to  see  how  persistently  the 
churchmen  opposed  science  in  favor  of  the 
Bible,  and  in  every  instance  they  failed.  They 
opposed  the  science  of  medicine,  but  favored 
witchcraft  and  demonology  as  an  explanation  of 
diseases. 

They  opposed  Franklin’s  lightning-rod  be¬ 
cause  it  interferred  with  the  doctrine  of  special 
providence. 

They  opposed  Newton’s  theory  of  gravita¬ 
tion,  because  it  interferred  with  their  doctrine 
that  the  heavenly  bodies  were  moved  around 
their  orbits  by  the  hands  of  angels. 

It  is  surprising  and  painful  to  see  that  nearly 
every  step  of  scientific  progress  was  opposed 
by  the  church,  or  by  laymen  advocating  the 
inerrancy  of  the  Bible.  In  every  one  of  these 

[57] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


instances  the  doctrine  of  an  inerrant  Bible  lost 
its  case,  and  science  won.  This  onght  to  be 
enough  to  show  that  the  Bible  must  not  be  taken 
literally,  and  that  it  is  not  a  book  on  science. 

But  anti-evolutionists  say  we  are  not  fair 
when  we  put  them  in  the  same  class  with  the 
opponents  of  Copernicus,  Galileo,  Newton,  and 
others.  I  appeal  to  students  throughout  the 
world  today  to  judge  whether  we  are  fair  when 
we  say  that  the  anti-evolutionists  today  are  of 
the  same  type  of  mind,  and  use  the  same  meth¬ 
ods  and  arguments  as  did  the  opponents  of 
Copernicus,  Galileo  and  others. 

They  quote  the  same  scriptures,  and  call  them 
inerrant. 

They  quote  the  same  scriptures,  and  say  they 
are  scientifically  correct. 

They  make  identically  the  same  assumption 
that  God  could  not  have  inspired  any  other  kind 
of  a  book  but  an  inerrant  book. 

They  make  the  same  charge  against  their  op¬ 
ponents,  the  evolutionists,  namely,  that  they 
seek  to  destroy  the  value  of  the  Bible,  and 
undermine  the  morality  of  the  people,  espe¬ 
cially,  the  young. 


[58] 


Evolution  and  the  Bible 


They  have  the  same  intolerant  spirit  as  man¬ 
ifested  by  their  efforts  to  shut  the  months  of 
their  opponents  by  turning  them  out  of  their 
professorships.  Like  their  colleagues  in  the 
time  of  Copernicus  they  are  not  in  favor  of 
academic  freedom.  They  manifest  the  same 
kind  of  effrontery  when  they  assert  as  their  col¬ 
leagues  did,  two  or  three  hundred  years  ago, 
that  their  position  is  the  only  one  that  honors 
God  or  saves  the  soul.  No  matter  how  evident 
it  is  that  their  opponents,  the  evolutionists,  are 
among  the  most  intelligent,  best-beloved,  most 
loyal  to  truth  and  honor,  most  serviceable  men 
and  women  on  earth,  helping  to  solve  the 
world’s  problems  and  bear  its  burdens,  they 
nevertheless  class  them  as  atheists,  infidels,  and 
agnostics.  These  characterizations  are  the 
favorite  ones  used  by  their  colleagues  centuries 
ago. 

I  do  not  accept  the  plea  of  the  anti-evolution¬ 
ists  that  they  are  not  to  be  classed  with  the 
opponents  of  Copernicus  and  others  because 
their  theories  have  been  proven  true  while  evo¬ 
lution  has  not  been  proven  true.  The  truth 
is,  the  main  facts  of  evolution  are  as  well 


[59] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


established  as  the  doctrines  of  Copernicus, 
Galileo,  Newton.  The  proof  of  this  assertion 
will  be  considered  at  length  in  the  chapter  on  the 
Evidences  of  Evolution.  Let  it  suffice  to  quote 
here  the  words  of  Joseph  LeConte,  a  great  sci¬ 
entist  and  an  enthusiastic  believer  in  God  and 
religion.  In  his  book  on  Evolution  and  Religion, 
page  66,  he  says: 

“Evolution  is,  therefore,  no  longer  a  school 
of  thought.  The  words  evolutionism  and  evo¬ 
lutionist  ought  not  any  longer  to  be  used,  any 
more  than  gravitationism  and  gravitationist; 
for  the  law  of  evolution  is  as  certain  as  the  law 
of  gravitation.  Nay,  it  is  far  more  certain. 
The  connection  between  successive  events  in 
time  (causation)  is  far  more  certain  than  the 
connection  between  co-existent  objects  in  space 
(gravitation).” 

The  people  are  really  learning  something 
from  the  past.  The  masses  of  the  people  are 
better  educated  than  formerly,  and  they  dare 
to  think  for  themselves.  They  have  been  told 
by  anti-scientists  so  often  that  science  is  de¬ 
stroying  the  Bible  and  religion,  only  to  find  out 
afterwards  that  the  anti-scientists  were  mis- 


[6°] 


Evolution  and  the  Bible 


taken,  that  they  now  prefer  to  look  into  these 
things  themselves. 

The  Catholic  Church  which  used  to  be  con¬ 
servative  in  matters  of  science  and  the  Bible 
are  today  more  progressive  than  some  Protes¬ 
tants  in  their  interpretation  of  science  and  the 
Historical  Criticism.  They  say  these  scientific 
positions  do  not  imperil  the  soul;  that  men  can 
be  evolutionists  and  Higher  Critics,  and  still 
be  the  children  of  God.  I  quote  the  following 
clear  and  splendid  thought  from  an  eminent 
Catholic  authority.  “The  doctrine  of  evolu- 
tion  is  no  more  in  opposition  to  the  Catholic 
Church  than  is  the  Copernican  theory  or  that 
of  Galileo.”  Dr.  Andrew  White,  History  War¬ 
fare  of  Science  with  Theology ,  Vol.  1,  page  82. 
What  a  striking  contrast  these  words  are  to 
those  of  Martin  Luther:  “People  give  ear  to 
an  upstart  astrologer  (Copernicus)  who  strove 
to  show  that  the  earth  revolves,  not  the  heavens 
or  the  firmament,  the  sun  and  moon.  *  *  *  This 
fool  wishes  to  reverse  the  entire  science  of  as¬ 
tronomy;  but  sacred  scriptures  tell  us  that 
Joshua  commanded  the  sun  to  stand  still,  and 

[61] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


not  the  earth.’ ’  Dr.  White’s  Warfare  of  Sci¬ 
ence  with  Theology,  Vol  1,  page  126. 

But  Copernicus  was  not  such  a  “fool”  after 
all. 

Unfortunately  there  is  a  type  of  mind  that 
never  learns  anything  from  the  past.  One  good 
thing  about  Einstein’s  theory  of  The  Relativity 
of  Space  and  a  Limited  Universe  is  people  do 
not  know  enough  about  it  to  raise  an  objection! 
My  prophecy  is  that  wrhen,  in  future  years, 
there  is  even  a  small  general  knowledge  of  it 
some  one  will  object  to  the  theory  on  Bible 
grounds.  They  will  endeavor  to  show  that  it 
is  against  God,  the  Bible,  and  religion.  Then 
when  this  theory  has  won  the  day,  as  it  surely 
will,  and  the  earnest  students  of  nature  shall 
discover  some  other  great  truth,  again  some 
people  will  come  forth,  and  say,  it  can  not  be 
true:  it  destroys  God,  the  Bible  and  religion. 

A  great  outcry  has  been  made  against  evo¬ 
lution  because  it  teaches  man’s  descent  from 
lower  forms  of  animals.  What,  they  ask,  do 
you  mean  to  say  that  there  is  brute  blood  in 
my  veins,  and  my  child’s  veins?  This  part  of 
the  subject  will  be  discussed  at  greater  length 

[62] 


Evolution  and  the  Bible 


in  another  chapter.  Let  me  quote  the  Bible 
just  here  to  show  that  it  has  some  very  strong 
words  paralleling  man’s  life  with  that  of  the 
brute.  Bead  Ecclesiastes  3:18,19.  “I  said  in 
mine  heart  concerning  the  estate  of  the  sons  of 
men,  that  God  might  manifest  them,  and  that 
they  might  see  that  they  themselves  are  beasts. 
For  that  which  befalleth  the  sons  of  men,  be- 
falleth  the  beast;  even  one  thing  befalleth  them; 
as  the  one  dieth,  so  dieth  the  other.  Yea,  they 
have  all  one  breath ;  so  that  a  man  hath  no  pre¬ 
eminence  above  a  beast.”  I  trust  the  anti-evo¬ 
lutionist  will  not  throw  away  his  Bible  because 
of  these  strong  words  showing  our  likeness  to 
the  beast. 

In  Psalms  49 :12  we  have  this :  “  Nevertheless, 
man  being  in  honor  abideth  not;  he  is  like  the 
beasts  that  perish.” 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  when  Darwin  and  other 
scientists  claim  that  man  has  much  in  common 
with  the  beast,  the  whole  theory  can  not  be 
thrown  overboard  by  saying  that  everything  in 
the  Bible  contradicts  it.  Here  are  two  pass¬ 
ages  which  show  that  man  has  much  in  com¬ 
mon  with  the  brute.  The  Bible  does  not  affirm 


[63] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


man’s  descent  from  lower  forms,  but  it  is  not 
afraid  or  ashamed  to  affirm  that  man  has  much 
in  common  with  the  brute. 

Evolutionists  believe  in  the  Bible.  They 
preach  it  and  evolution,  too.  They  write  books 
showing  what  they  believe  to  be  the  greater 
thought  of  God  as  He  has  gone  about  His  work, 
patiently  and  persistently  through  the  ceaseless 
ages.  The  Bible  itself  is  a  result  of  evolution, 
and  God  was  in  the  evolution.  At  first  the 
Hebrews  thought  of  God  as  a  tribal  God.  He 
was  God  of  the  Hebrews,  God  of  the  Israelites, 
and  they  had  no  thought  of  His  being  the  God 
of  all  people.  He  was  spoken  of  as  4 ‘Our  God,” 
in  contrast  to  the  gods  of  other  tribes.  This  fact 
is  made  plain  by  the  tenth  chapter  of  Joshua 
where  it  is  stated  that  God  made  the  sun  to 
stand  still  a  whole  day  in  order  that  Joshua 
and  his  army  might  have  more  time  to  slay  what 
was  said  to  be  “the  enemies  of  the  Lord.”  And 
such  slaughter !  Nothing  that  the  Germans  or 
Turks  did  in  the  late  war  surpassed  it.  Read  it, 
and  then  remember  that  all  this  was  done  by  the 
command  of  God.  Can  you  believe  it  ?  Is  it  not 
saner  to  believe  that  these  Hebrews,  in  that  far 
away  time,  had  crude  ideas  of  God  —  just  such 
ideas  as  other  tribes  and  nations  had? 


[64] 


Evolution  and  the  Bible 


But  Israel  rose  out  of  this,  and  reached  that 
glorious  period  where  it  taught  the  doctrine 
that  God  is  not  only  the  God  of  the  Israelites, 
hut  the  God  of  the  whole  world.  The  great 
prophet,  Malachi,  asks:  “Have  we  not  all  one 
Father  ?  Hath  not  one  God  created  us  ?  ”  “  And 
the  Gentiles  shall  come  to  thy  light,”  Isaiah 
60 :3.  4 ‘And  they  shall  declare  my  glory  among 
the  Gentiles.”  Isaiah  66:19.  At  first  the 
Hebrews  looked  upon  their  neighbors  as  ene¬ 
mies.  They  said  if  you  find  an  animal  that  died 
of  itself  sell  it  to  your  neighbor;  do  not  eat 
it  yourself.  Out  of  this  they  rose  to  the  finest 
expressions  of  neighborly  love  and  good  will 
which  have  ever  been  expressed  by  the  lips  of 
man,  culminating  in  that  most  beautiful  and 
stimulating  verse,  Leviticus  19:18:  “Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.” 

At  first  the  Hebrews  practiced  human  sacri¬ 
fice  and  animal  sacrifice  as  did  their  neighbors, 
and  part  of  the  time  they  worshiped  idols  as 
did  the  people  around  them.  Out  of  this  they 
rose  to  the  highest  conceptions  of  spiritual  wor¬ 
ship,  the  most  beautiful  and  heartfelt  devotion 
to  the  one  only  true  God.  Out  of  this  came  that 


[65] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


moral,  that  humane,  that  spiritual  insight  which 
gave  us  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  Forty- 
second  and  other  Psalms,  the  great  moral  ex¬ 
hortations  of  the  prophets,  the  Beatitudes  of 
Jesus,  the  13th  chapter  of  I  Corinthians  and 
many  other  noble  and  inspiring  passages. 

Read  the  sermons  of  evolutionists.  Read 
their  books.  Be  as  just  as  our  courts  of  law, 
do  not  judge  your  opponent  unheard.  You  will 
find  that  the  evolutionists  have  just  as  high  and 
holy  a  place  for  the  Bible,  and  God,  and  religion 
as  any  one.  They  do  not  teach  that  the  Bible 
is  a  book  of  science,  but  they  show  that  it  is  the 
greatest  book  in  the  wide  world  in  its  teachings 
of  God  and  morality  and  religion. 


[66] 


CHAPTER  Y 


THE  BIBLE  NOT  AN  INERRANT  BOOK 


MUCH  has  been  written  on  the  “iner* 
rancy  and  the  “infallibility”  of  the 
Bible.  Sometimes  more  heat  has  been 
produced  than  light.  Some  writers  speak  of 
the  “infallibility”  and  the  “inerrancy”  of  the 
Bible  as  if  both  words  meant  the  same  thing.  It 
will  help  us  to  understand  the  subject  a  little 
better  if  we  will  give  some  study  to  those  words. 
The  words  do  not  mean  the  same  thing.  When 
it  is  said  that  the  “Bible  is  an  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,”  that  is  a  truth  which 
no  one  will  gainsay,  but  that  does  not  mean  that 
the  Bible  is  inerrant.  The  words  “infallible” 
and  “inerrant”  are  not  in  the  Bible.  The  idea 
of  sufficiency  or  infallibility  is  found  in  such 
scriptures  as  II  Timothy  3:15:  “All  scripture 
inspired  of  God  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
righteousness.”  Another  excellent  passage  is 

[67] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


found  in  Isaiah,  55:11:  “It  (my  word)  shall 
not  return  unto  me  void,  but  it  shall  accomplish 
that  which  I  please,  and  it  shall  prosper  in  the 
thing  whereto  I  sent  it.”  This  we  know  to  be 
true,  and  no  one  wishes  to  deny  it.  We  know 
that  the  Ten  Commandments  are  so  plain,  so  un- 
mistakingly  true;  that  the  great  Psalms,  the 
great  exhortations  of  the  prophets,  the  Beati¬ 
tudes  of  Jesus  and  a  vast  wealth  of  other  scrip¬ 
tures  are  so  forceful  and  persuasive,  so  plainly 
voicing  the  thought  of  God,  that  they  are  in¬ 
fallibly  true.  They  are  so  plainly  a  revelation 
of  God  that  we  say  in  Bible  language  “  a  way¬ 
faring  man  though  a  fool  shall  not  err  therein.  ” 

The  infallibility  of  the  Bible  means  that  if  a 
man  reads  the  Bible  carefully,  for  the  purpose 
of  religious  guidance,  and  finds  it  not,  the  fault 
is  his,  not  the  Bible’s.  There  is  enough  truth 
and  inspiration  in  the  passages  I  have  referred 
to  above  to  save  every  man  born  into  the  world. 
But  that  does  not  mean  that  the  Bible  is  in¬ 
fallible  in  matters  of  science  and  history,  or 
inerrant  in  other  respects. 

The  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible 
as  that  word  was  used  by  some  of  the  greatest 

[68] 


The  Bible  Not  An  Inerrant  Book 


fathers  of  the  church  will  remain  unharmed  by 
any  amount  of  criticism.  Evolutionists  bring 
against  it  no  word  of  reproach.  But  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  inerrancy  of  the  Bible  is  dead  past 
resurrection.  All  the  anti-evolutionists  in  the 
world  with  their  4  ‘  peerless  ”  oratory  can  not 
restore  it  to  life.  It  died  an  unmistakably  cer¬ 
tain  death  when  the  “ friends”  of  the  Bible  in¬ 
sisted  vehemently  that  the  Bible  taught  the 
earth  was  flat,  and  the  center  of  our  planetary 
system,  and  the  “infidel”  scientists  proved  that 
the  earth  is  a  sphere,  and  revolves  around  the 
sun.  The  literalists  made  belief  in  the  iner¬ 
rancy  of  the  Bible  impossible  when  they  upheld 
witchcraft  on  Bible  grounds ;  when  they  upheld 
slavery  on  Bible  grounds;  when  they  opposed 
gravitation  on  Bible  grounds.  In  a  word  they 
made  belief  in  an  inerrant  Bible  impossible 
when  they  opposed  nearly  every  truth  of  science 
that  has  ever  been  put  forth  —  opposed  it  in 
behalf  of  a  supposedly  inerrant  Bible. 

Astruc,  a  French  medical  writer,  aided  by 
thousands  of  worthy  ministers  of  religion  and 
professors  of  theology  helped  to  put  to  death 
this  false  doctrine  of  an  inerrant  Bible  by 


[69] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


showing  that  there  are  sometimes  two  or  three 
or  four  different  accounts  of  the  same  events, 
and  that  these  different  accounts  can  not  be  re¬ 
conciled.  These  differences  are  so  plain  that  no 
fair-minded  man  can  fail  to  see  them  when 
pointed  out.  I  do  not  claim  that  these  differ¬ 
ences  are  so  great  that  they  injure  the  great 
foundations  of  vital  moral  and  religious  truth, 
but  they  are  great  enough  to  destroy  the  false 
doctrine  of  an  inerrant  Bible. 

Let  us  take  up  the  Bible,  and  see  what  these 
differences  are,  and  what  the  writers  them¬ 
selves  have  to  say  about  their  knowledge  of 
things.  Nowhere  do  they  claim  to  be  inerrant. 
Paul  says,  I  Cor.  13 :9-12 :  1 ‘  For  now  we  know  in 
part,  and  we  prophesy  in  part.  Now  we  see 
through  a  glass  darkly.’ 9  If  you  will  read 
Galatians  2 :11-14,  vou  will  find  that  Paul 
“Withstood  Peter  to  his  face,  because  Peter 
was  to  be  blamed.  ”  Paul  savs  that  Peter  “  dis- 
sembled,”  and  caused  others  to  “dissemble.” 
He  also  says  that  they  did  not  walk  “uprightly.  ’ ’ 
Now  is  it  not  as  plain  as  can  be  that  either 
Peter  or  Paul  was  in  error?  There  was  “blame” 
or  lack  of  “uprightness”  somewhere. 


[70] 


The  Bible  Not  An  Inerrant  Book 


Again  Paul  says,  Phil.  3:12:  “Not  as  though 
I  had  already  attained,  either  were  already  per¬ 
fect.” 

Paul  here  distinctly  disclaims  perfection. 
There  is  no  Bible  writer  that  claims  inerrancy 
of  utterance. 

There  is  only  one  writer  who  calls  down  a 
curse  upon  any  one  who  would  alter  “the  word 
of  this  prophecy,”  and  that  is  found  in  Rev. 
22 :19.  But  the  reference  is  only  to  that  book, 
Revelation. 

The  inerrancy  of  the  Bible  is  not  taught  either 
by  Catholics  or  the  early  Protestants.  Dr. 
Briggs,  in  his  book  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and 
the  Reason,  shows  that  Origen,  Jerome,  St. 
Augustine,  Luther,  Calvin,  Baxter  and  many 
others  never  taught  such  doctrine,  but  distinctly 
points  out  some  of  the  errors.  Whatever  one 
may  think  of  the  significance  or  insignificance 
of  these  errors,  they  are  nevertheless  errors. 

In  order  that  we  may  see  more  clearly  the 
different  statements  in  the  Bible  about  the  same 
events  I  will  put  a  few  of  them  in  parallel 
columns :  they  are  plain  contradictions : 


[7i] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


“And  David’s  heart  smote 
him  after  that  he  had  num¬ 
bered  the  people.  And 
David  said  unto  the  Lord, 
I  have  sinned  greatly  in 
that  I  have  done.” 

II  Samuel  24:10. 

(That  is,  in  numbering  the 
people  he  had  “sinned 
greatly.”  So  that  makes 
two  sins  he  committed.) 

“And  it  came  to  pass  after 
these  things,  that  God  did 
tempt  Abraham.” 

Genesis  22:1. 

“0  Lord,  thou  hast  de¬ 
ceived  me  and  I  was  de¬ 
ceived. 

Jer.  20:7. 

“The  earth  abideth  for¬ 
ever.  ’  ’ 

Ec.  1:4. 

‘ 1  Whosoever  is  born  of  God 
doth  not  commit  sin;  he  can 
not  sin  because  he  is  born 
of  God.” 

I  John  3:9. 

“Miehal,  the  daughter  of 
Saul,  had  no  child  unto  the 
day  of  her  death.” 

II  Sam.  6 :23. 


“David  did  that  which  was 
right  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Lord,  and  turned  not  aside 
in  anything  that  he  com¬ 
manded  him  all  the  days  of 
his  life,  save  only  in  the 
matter  of  Uriah,  the  Hit- 
tite. 9  ’ 

I  Kings  15:5. 


“Let  no  man  say  when  he 
is  tempted,  I  am  tempted  of 
God:  for  God  can  not  be 
tempted  wuth  evil,  neither 
tempteth  he  any  man.” 

James  1 :13. 


“The  earth  also,  and  the 
works  that  are  therein, 
shall  be  burned  up.” 

II  Peter  3 :10. 

“There  is  not  a  just  man 
upon  earth,  that  doeth  good 
and  sinneth  not.” 

Ec.  7 :20. 

“The  five  sons  of  Miclial ,  the 
daughter  of  Saul.” 

II  Sam.  21 :8. 


[72] 


The  Bible  Not  An  Inerrant  Book 


“■He  that  goeth  down  to  the  “The  trumpet  shall  sound 
grave  shall  come  up  no  and  the  dead  shall  be 
more.”  raised.” 

Job.  7:9.  I  Cor.  15:52. 

Get  your  Bible,  and  look  up  these  passages. 

There  are  many  more  contradictions  both  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  the  New.  How  serious 
these  contradictions  which  I  have  given  above 
let  each  man  judge  for  himself.  But  they  are 
flat  contradictions,  and  you  can  not  brush  them 
away.  He  is  a  very  poor  friend  of  the  Bible 
and  the  young  men  in  our  colleges  who  holds  out 
the  idea  that  the  Bible  is  inerrant,  that  it  has 
no  historical  or  scientific  contradictions.  The 
best  and  surest  way  of  getting  and  keeping  the 
confidence  of  people  is  to  tell  them  plainly  the 
truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth  about  the  Bible. 
The  Bible  has  truth,  and  beauty,  and  goodness 
enough  to  take  care  of  itself. 

Evolution  and  the  Higher  Criticism  make  no 
effort  to  destroy  or  lessen  its  value. 

One  of  the  favorite  arguments  of  the  liter- 
alists  against  admitting  that  there  is  one  error, 
one  contradiction,  one  mistaken  analogy  in  the 
Bible  is  that  if  the  Bible  is  “false  in  one  thing 
it  is  false  in  all.”  No  student  of  the  Bible  has 


[73] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


ever  charged  that  the  contradictions  in  the  Bible 
are  the  result  of  deliberate  purposeful  lying. 
They  are  accounted  for  on  an  entirely  different 
principle.  Let  us  consider  that  rule  by  which 
testimony  is  judged  which  we  find  at  Common 
Law  —  “ False  in  one  thing,  false  in  all.”  This 
rule  has  a  very  limited  application.  In  our 
courts  of  law  today,  if  the  witness  makes  plain 
the  fact  that  he  is  deliberately  lying,  that,  of 
course  throws  very  grave  suspicion  on  the  other 
parts  of  his  testimony,  and  the  jury  takes  that 
fact  into  account.  But  the  judge  will  tell  the 
jury  that  though  the  witness  may  be  lying  in 
one  part  of  his  testimony  it  is  possible  that  he 
is  telling  the  truth  in  other  parts.  But  if  the 
witness  is  plainly  not  trying  to  give  false  tes¬ 
timony,  but  is  simply  mistaken  in  some  of  the 
details  it  does  not  even  raise  a  suspicion  against 
his  testimony  as  a  whole.  For  instance;  sup¬ 
pose  a  witness  says  that  a  certain  thing  hap¬ 
pened  at  ten  o’clock  in  the  morning,  or  eight, 
or  twelve,  and  suppose  it  should  be  proven  that 
it  happened  at  nine  o’clock;  or  suppose  there 
was  some  other  inaccuracy,  it  would  not  vitiate 
his  testimony. 


[74] 


The  Bible  Not  An  Inerrant  Book 


About  the  Bible  there  is  no  presumption  of 
falsehood.  As  stated  on  another  page  much  of 
the  Bible  is  pure  literature,  and  uses  the  forms 
of  expression,  the  tropes,  imagery,  hyperbole 
that  we  find  in  all  literature  from  the  remotest 
times  to  the  present  day.  These  Bible  writers 
wanted  to  illustrate  and  enforce  some  great 
moral  and  religious  truth,  and  they  put  it  in 
the  form  of  a  parable,  or  a  story,  or  a  poem  like 
the  poem  of  creation  which  we  find  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis. 

Furthermore,  when  the  Bible  was  put  to¬ 
gether  in  its  present  form,  it  was  put  together 
by  an  editor  or  redactor.  He  found  several 
documents  describing  the  same  events,  written 
by  different  men,  living  in  different  parts  of  the 
country,  and  written  at  different  times. 
Whether  the  editor  noticed  the  contradictions  in 
these  different  accounts  we  do  not  know;  but 
instead  of  re-writing  these  different  accounts 
he  puts  them  together  just  as  he  found  them, 
and  there  they  are  today  in  many  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament,  in  Genesis,  in  the  other  por¬ 
tions  of  the  Hexateuch,  Kings,  Chronicles,  and 
even  in  the  New  Testament. 


[75] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


But  in  none  of  these  books  is  there  any  at¬ 
tempt  at  falsehood.  So  the  statement  that  one 
must  believe  all  the  Bible  as  literal  truth  or  none 
of  it  would  find  no  justification  in  our  courts 
of  law  where  the  rule  ‘ ‘false  in  one  thing,  false 
in  all”  is  rightly  interpreted,  nor  does  it  find 
justification  at  the  bar  of  common  sense.  We 
act  with  discretion  and  judgment  in  the  com¬ 
plex  affairs  of  human  life.  We  do  not  throw 
away  all  good  things  because  some  things  are 
not  good.  We  do  not  discredit  all  history,  all 
literature,  all  constitutions  upon  which  govern¬ 
ments  are  founded  because  there  are  weak  spots. 

Away,  then,  with  the  absurd  idea,  that  we 
must  throw  awav  the  whole  Bible  because  there 
are  contradictions  and  mistaken  analogies. 
There  are  great  mountain  peaks  of  truth  and 
beauty  that  stand  out  in  the  Bible  like  glorious 
beacons  to  guide  the  weary  world  in  its  search 
for  God.  Many  millions  of  human  beings  have 
found  the  way  of  life,  and  were  satisfied.  And 
as  this  old  earth  goes  circling  on  its  tireless 
journey  many  millions  more  will  find  the  light, 
the  truth,  the  Holy  Presence  which  they  so  much 
need.  They  are  not  going  to  be  distressed  nor 


[76] 


The  Bible  Not  An  Inerrant  Book 


discouraged  when  they  understand  that  the 
Bible  was  not  written  in  the  interest  of  as¬ 
tronomy,  geography,  electricity,  botany  and 
biology.  The  prayers  of  the  Psalmist,  the  im¬ 
passioned  words  of  righteousness  of  the 
prophets,  the  everlasting  “thou  shalt  not”  as 
well  as  “thou  shalt”  —  these  are  the  things 
that  nourish  the  soul.  Believing  that  God  is  at 
least  as  good  and  wise  as  a  good  human  being 
they  have  no  hesitancy  in  refusing  to  look  upon 
this  verse  from  the  Psalms  as  a  divine  truth: 
“Thou  shalt  not  suffer  a  witch  to  live.”  Be¬ 
lieving  that  God  is  as  fair  and  honorable  in  his 
dealings  as  an  ordinary  butcher  they  refuse 
to  believe  that  the  writer  in  Deut.  1$  :21  voiced  uP 


the  mind  of  God  when  he  said  that  if  an  animal  u 

was  found  dead  that  died  of  itself,  the  Israel-  f 

7  Jl- 

ites  were  not  to  eat  it,  but  that  they  “ may  sell  ^  9 
it  to  an  alien.”  Believing  that  God  is  the 
Father  of  the  whole  human  race,  they  find  no 
difficulty  in  denying  the  divine  authorship  of 
the  verse  in  the  Psalm  which  says:  “Happy 
shall  he  be,  that  taketh,  and  dasheth  thy  little 
ones  against  the  stones.”  Psalm  137:9. 

I  would  not  tear  a  leaf  out  of  the  Bible.  Let 


[77] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


it  all  remain  just  as  it  is  showing  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  a  most  wonderful  people  from 
savagery  to  a  most  splendid  culture  and  civiliza¬ 
tion;  from  idolatry  to  the  noblest  conceptions 
of  a  spiritual  God,  and  from  the  cruel  law  of 
retaliation  to  the  inspiring  principles  of  justice 
and  mercy.  Let  it  stand  just  as  it  is  with  its 
errors  and  its  truth,  but  let  us  have  the  sanity 
not  to  allow  our  love  for  this  great  book  to 
blind  us  to  new  discoveries  and  plainer  truth. 


[78] 


CHAPTER  VI 


SOME  OF  THE  EVIDENCES  OF 
EVOLUTION 

IN  THE  preceding  chapters  I  have  endeav¬ 
ored  to  show  that  the  rank  and  file  of 
evolutionists  are  not  atheists,  but  that  they 
are  just  as  intelligent,  as  competent,  as  moral, 
as  spiritual,  and  they  are  as  deeply  interested 
in  the  moral  and  religious  welfare  of  the  people 
as  any  on  the  other  side.  I  have  also  shown 
that  they  believe  the  Bible,  they  preach  it,  and 
they  strive  to  live  its  great  moral  and  religious 
precepts. 

But  have  the  evolutionists  substantial  truth 
on  their  side  with  respect  to  their  claims  that 
higher  forms  of  life  have  come  out  of  the  lower 
forms  of  life  by  gradual  changes  from  the  lower 
to  the  higher?  What  are  some  of  the  evidences 
of  evolution  ?  Why  do  scientists  insist  that  man 
was  not  made  out  of  hand  in  a  few  minutes  or 
hours  as  a  child  might  make  a  mud  doll? 

[79] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


Possibly  God  had  the  power  to  make  man  that 
way,  or  by  the  word  of  his  month;  but  evolu¬ 
tionists  say  that  that  was  not  his  method. 

Many  of  the  facts  that  evolutionists  have 
placed  before  ns  are  plain  enough  and  com¬ 
prehensible  enough  to  enable  any  fair-minded 
man  of  ordinary  intelligence  to  understand  the 
subject.  It  is  a  mistake  to  say  that  only  college 
graduates  can  grasp  the  main  features  of  the 
subject.  The  plain  people  know  enough  about 
the  facts  of  astronomy  to  enable  them  to  believe 
that  the  earth  is  round,  the  sun  is  the  center  of 
our  planetary  system,  and  that  the  sun  is  about 
ninety-three  million  miles  from  the  earth.  The 
plain  people  may  not  be  able  to  demonstrate 
these  facts  by  the  aid  of  the  telescope  and 
mathematics,  but  they  can  appreciate  intelli¬ 
gent  arguments  of  the  men  who  are  in  a  position 
to  know,  and  they  trust  them.  If  people  of 
ordinary  intelligence  do  not  accept  the  doctrine 
of  evolution  it  is  not  because  they  are  not  able 
to  grasp  the  main  facts.  Some  of  the  facts  and 
arguments  are  these: 

FIRST:  The  fact  that  practically  all  scien¬ 
tists  believe  it. 


[8°] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


When  a  theory  has  been  in  the  field  of  discus¬ 
sion  for  several  hundred  years,  and  competent 
men  have  brought  against  it  and  in  its  behalf  all 
the  arguments  which  they  command,  if  the 
theory  comes  out  with  the  vast  majority  of 
competent  critics  on  its  side,  it  is  certainly 
presumptive  evidence  of  its  truth. 

From  the  beginning  a  few  scientists  have  been 
against  it,  and  at  the  present  time  there  are 
possibly  one  or  two  scientists  of  note  who  oppose 
it,  though  I  do  not  happen  to  know  one.  But 
it  is  a  plain  truth  that  practically  all  scientists 
of  note,  all  teachers  of  botany  and  biology,  and 
a  very  large  number  of  leading  ministers  in  all 
denominations ,  besides  millions  of  laymen  and 
laywomen  in  all  walks  of  life  believe  the 
doctrine. 

Another  strong  presumption  in  its  favor  is 
this:  The  men  and  women  who  believe  in  evo-  j 
lution,  almost  without  exception,  are  the  people  * 
who  have  given  it  careful  study.  In  very  many 
cases  they  did  not  at  first  believe  it.  They 
were  prejudiced  against  it,  but  their  study  led 
them  to  accept  it. 


[81] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


SECOND:  In  the  many  years  of  contest 
between  science  and  the  Historical  Criticism  on 
one  side,  and  the  literalists  on  the  other  side, 
scientists  and  the  writers  on  Historical  Criti¬ 
cism  have  never  retreated  from  any  important, 
essential  position  which  they  assumed.  Age 
after  age  the  victory  has  been  with  science. 
Everv  educated  man  knows  this  and  even  the 
plain  people. 

THIRD :  The  trust-worthiness  of  our  leaders 
is  another  argument  in  favor  of  evolution. 
Millions  of  plain  people  can  not  demonstrate 
the  law  of  gravitation  that  “all  bodies  attract 
each  other  directly  according  to  their  mass  and 
inversely  according  to  the  square  of  their  dis¬ 
tances  ;  ’  ’  but  they  trust  the  men  who  can  demon¬ 
strate  that  proposition,  and  they  do  not  hesitate 
to  believe  in  the  laws  of  gravitation. 

There  are  many  other  every-day  truths  of 
science  which  the  people  believe,  though  they 
are  not  able  to  demonstrate  them  by  the  aid 
of  the  microscope  or  telescope  or  by  the  rules 
of  mathematics. 

Science  has  told  us  the  truth  so  often,  and 
the  people  who  interpreted  the  Bible  literally 

[82] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 

have  been  so  often  mistaken,  that  we  are  coming 
more  and  more  to  see  that  scientists  are  the 
leaders  whom  we  can  trust. 

The  literalists  said  the  earth  is  flat.  Scien¬ 
tists  said,  no,  and  scientists  won.  The  literal¬ 
ists  said  the  snn  revolves  around  the  earth. 
Scientists  said,  no,  and  scientists  won. 

The  literalists  said  the  angels  move  the 
planets  around  their  orbits.  Scientists  said, 
no,  it  is  gravitation,  and  scientists  won. 

The  literalists  said  that  man  was  made  in  a 
few  moments  or  a  few  hours.  Scientists  said, 
no,  it  took  ages  by  a  very  slow  process.  Again 
the  facts  before  us  seem  to  warrant  the  asser¬ 
tion  that  scientists  have  won. 

FOURTH:  Another  argument  in  favor  of 
evolution  is  the  attitude  of  Jewish  Rabbis  in 
favor  of  the  non-literal  interpretation  of  the 
Old  Testament.  If  the  literal  verbal  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  Old  Testament  was  most  honoring 
to  it,  exalted  it  above  all  other  methods,  it 
would  be  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world 
for  Jewish  Rabbis  to  espouse  the  literal  verbal 
method.  The  Jews  have  an  unquestioned  right 
to  a  just  pride  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 

[83] 


Evolution  and  Eeligion 


Study  these  Scriptures  in  the  light  of  their  own 
plain  declarations;  study  them  in  comparison 
with  all  other  sacred  writings  of  the  past,  and 
it  is  plain  to  see  that  human  thought  and  speech 
have  not  given  us  anything  equal  to  them  in 
lofty  ideals  of  morality  and  spiritual  uplift. 
To  be  the  inheritors,  guardians,  and  interpre¬ 
ters  of  these  Scriptures  is  surely  a  great 
responsibility.  These  Rabbis  appreciate  this 
responsibility,  and  not  for  anything  would 
they  follow  a  course  that  would  lower  the  Bible 
in  the  estimation  of  the  world.  For  the  past 
thirty  years  I  have  been  associated  with  some 
of  the  best  educated,  most  spiritual-minded, 
hardest-working  Rabbis  this  country  has  pro¬ 
duced,  and  I  do  not  know  one  who  insists  on 
a  literal  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament. 
They  say  that  the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis 
contain  an  account  of  religious  things,  not  scien¬ 
tific,  a  real  poem  of  creation;  that  the  writers 
were  supremely  interested  in  teaching  that  God 
made  all  things,  and  not  a  demi-god;  that  the 
duty  of  Sabbath  observance  was  more  in  the 
mind  of  the  writer  than  scientific  accuracy. 
Surely  if  the  literal  verbal  interpretation  was 

[84] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


nearer  the  truth  and  more  honoring  to  God  and 
the  Bible  these  intelligent  Rabbis  would  teach 
it. 

FIFTH:  The  word  “create”  has  nothing  in 
it  against  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  Some 
writers  have  insisted  that  the  word  “create” 
alwavs  means  to  “make  out  of  hand,”  “to 
bring  into  existence  without  secondary  causes,” 
and  “out  of  nothing.”  That  is  not  true.  The 
Hebrew  word,  “bara,”  means,  “to  cause  to 
exist,”  “to  bring  into  being,”  and  the  method 
of  bringing  into  existence  is  not  hinted  at. 
There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  word  that 
would  indicate  method  of  any  kind.  Not  one 
ray  of  comfort  can  the  anti-evolutionists  get 
out  of  the  true  meaning  of  that  word  ‘  ‘  create.  ’  ’ 
Therefore  when  the  Bible  says  that  God  created 
man  we  have  to  look  outside  of  that  word 
“create”  for  his  method. 

SIXTH:  Argument  from  variations  in  plants 
and  animals. 

An  argument  in  support  of  evolution  which 
all  observant  people  can  appreciate  is  the  fact 
that  animals  and  plants  do  vary  to  some  ex¬ 
tent  at  least.  We  see  this  with  our  own  eyes. 


[85] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


One  of  the  most  interesting  experiences  people 
have  is  the  producing  of  varieties  of  plants  and 
fruits.  This  is  being  done  every  day  by 
orchardists,  florists,  and  farmers  all  over  the 
world.  The  fact  is  Darwin  got  his  idea  of  “nat¬ 
ural  selection’ ’  by  observing  the  varieties  the 
farmers  were  producing  by  artificial  selection. 
He  said  nature’s  method  was  something  like 
that. 

Look  at  the  great  variety  of  hogs,  horses, 
dogs,  apples,  peaches  and  other  animals  and 
fruits.  What  wonderful  variation  from  the 
common  stock!  This  shows  a  constant  tendency 
to  variation. 

Again  consider  the  variation  in  the  rosaceae. 
What  a  wonderful  thing  it  is  that  the  rose,  the 
apple,  pear,  peach,  plum,  strawberry,  dew-berry 
and  other  fruits  should  all  have  come  from  the 
same  common  parent.  We  see  in  all  this  what 
wonderful  things  variation  can  accomplish. 
But  most  of  the  varieties  I  have  mentioned  were 
created  by  man,  by  artificial  selection,  in  the 
very  short  time  he  has  been  working  at  these 
things.  The  evolutionists  say,  give  nature  the 
millions  of  years  that  geology  says  she  has. 

[86] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


and  you  can  account  for  all  the  varieties,  all 
the  divisions  and  subdivisions  in  the  same  way, 
by  the  constant  tendency  to  vary  by  the  two 
great  laws  of  heredity  and  variation. 

Consider  again  the  wonderful  changes  that 
take  place  in  the  development  of  the  frog  from 
its  egg.  It  is  hatched  out  as  a  tadpole,  and  has 
the  appearance  of  a  perfect  little  fish  with  gills 
by  which  it  breathes,  and  a  tail  with  which  it 
swims.  It  can  not  live  out  of  water,  for  it  has 
no  lungs  with  which  to  breathe.  It  can  not 
walk  on  dry  land  for  it  has  no  legs.  But  note 
what  wonderful  changes  take  place:  it  forms 
one  pair  of  legs,  and  then  another  pair;  then  its 
gills  begin  to  dry  up,  and  its  lungs  begin  to 
grow,  and  finally,  it  breathes  entirely  by  means 
of  its  lungs.  Then  the  tail  is  absorbed,  and  it 
is  a  lung-breathing  animal  that  travels  on  land 
by  means  of  its  legs. 

These  wonderful  changes  millions  of  people 
are  seeing  every  year  in  the  warm  climates.  If 
nature  can  produce  such  marvellous  transfor¬ 
mations  in  a  few  weeks  is  it  unreasonable  that 
still  greater  changes  have  taken  place  during 

[87] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


the  countless  ages  life  has  been  on  this  planet, 
and  variation  has  been  going  on? 

Evolutionists  do  not  cite  the  above  example 
as  a  demonstration  of  the  origin  of  species,  but 
it  is  cited  in  proof  of  the  wonderful  possibilities 
of  variation.  Evolutionists  have  scored  a  strong 
point  in  favor  of  their  claim  as  to  some  of  the 
causes  of  the  origin  of  species  when  they  show 
what  marvellous  things  have  been  done,  and 
are  still  being  done  right  under  our  own  eyes 
by  variation.  If  plants  and  animals  can  vary  as 
much  as  we  see  in  the  life-time  of  a  man  or  in 
several  generations,  why  may  it  not  be  true  that 
this  variation  has  been  going  on  for  many  thou¬ 
sands  of  years,  and  accounts  for  all  the  different 
forms  that  dwell  on  the  earth? 

Now  the  contention  of  the  evolutionist  is,  that 
species  vary  without  limit;  that  variation  has 
been  going  on  countless  thousands  of  years, 
and  out  of  it  all  have  come,  by  slow  processes, 
the  wonderfully  interesting  and  complex  forms 
that  we  see  to-day.  As  it  is  no  more  unreason¬ 
able  that  man  should  continue  to  exist  hereafter 
than  that  he  should  exist  at  all,  so  it  is  no  more 
unreasonable  that  plants  and  animals  have 


[88] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


varied  for  thousands  of  years  than  that  they 
vary  now  right  under  our  own  eyes.  We  should 
have  no  difficulty  in  believing  with  LeConte 
that  “varieties,  species,  genera,  families,  orders, 
classes  etc.  are  only  different  degrees  of  differ¬ 
ences  formed  all  in  the  same  way,”  and  are 
“only  different  degrees  of  blood-kinship.” 

SEWENTH:  Argument  from  Similarity  of 
Structure. 

The  similarity  of  bodily  structure  of  man  and 
the  higher  order  of  apes  is  an  interesting  and 
instructive  one.  “Bone  for  bone,  muscle  for 
muscle,  ganglion  for  ganglion,  almost  nerve- 
fibre  for  nerve-fibre  man’s  body  corresponds 
with  that  of  higher  animals.”  (LeConte) 

What  is  the  meaning  of  this  similarity  of 
structure,  almost  identity  of  structure?  Is  it 
not  most  reasonable  to  suppose  that  there  is  a 
common  origin  away  back  in  the  remote  past? 

Here  is  where  some  people  balk  for  unreason¬ 
able  reasons.  They  readily  grant  that  the  rose 
and  pear,  peach,  plum,  and  berries  all  come 
from  a  common  stem,  rosaceae ,  and  that  the 
wolf,  dog,  coyote,  and  fox  came  from  a  common 
parentage,  the  canidae,  but  when  it  is  pointed 

[89] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


out  that  man  and  the  apes  belong  to  the  same 
order  of  primates,  they  raise  their  hands  in 
holy  horror !  Well,  however  horrible  it  may  be 
we  have  to  get  used  to  it.  But  really  it  is 
not  as  horrible  as  some  people  pretend.  Let 
ns  look  at  the  facts  fairly  and  candidly: 

In  the  first  place  we  can  not  choose  onr  an¬ 
cestors.  We  may  choose  to  believe  that  cer¬ 
tain  beings  are  or  are  not  onr  ancestors,  bnt 
that  is  a  very  different  proposition.  If  John 
Smith,  the  drnnken  sot  who  poisoned  his  wife 
in  order  to  marry  another  woman  is  yonr  father, 
yon  may  deny  it,  yon  may  get  red  or  black  in 
the  face  if  some  one  reminds  yon  that  this  John 
Smith  is  yonr  father,  bnt  your  denial  does  not 
destroy  the  fact.  John  Smith  is  nevertheless 
yonr  father.  That  is  as  plain  as  two  and  two 
make  four.  If  Captain  John  Smith,  the  Gover¬ 
nor  is  not  your  father,  yonr  assertion  that  he  is 
does  not  make  him  yonr  father.  You  may 
choose  to  believe,  but  yon  can  not  choose  yonr 
father.  If  some  anthropoid  ape,  some  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  years  ago  was  the  ancestor  of 
both  the  human  race  and  of  present  day  mon¬ 
keys  and  apes  some  people  may  get  fighting 

[90] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


mad  over  the  assertion  —  but  that  does  not 
change  the  fact.  The  whole  question  is  one  of 
evidence.  What  are  the  facts! 

The  same  is  true  with  respect  to  the  negro 
being  the  remote  consin  of  the  white  races. 
Both  the  Bible  and  anthropology  teach  a  com¬ 
mon  origin  of  the  races.  The  Bible  tells  us  that 
Noah  was  the  ancestor  of  Shem,  Ham  and  Ja¬ 
pheth.  There  is  just  as  much  and  the  same  kind 
of  proof  from  the  Bible  that  Ham  is  the  progen¬ 
itor  of  the  black  races  as  that  Shem  and  Japheth 
are  the  progenitors  of  the  white  races.  One 
writer  has  said  recently  that  there  is  no  “thus 
saith  the  Lord”  to  warrant  the  assertion  that 
Ham  is  the  progenitor  of  the  negro  race.  No, 
there  is  not;  neither  is  there  any  “thus  saith 
the  Lord”  to  warrant  the  assertion  that  Shem 
and  Japheth  are  the  progenitors  of  the  white 
races.  The  argument  of  a  very  few  people,  who 
can  lay  no  claim  to  scientific  knowledge,  that 
the  negro  entered  the  ark  as  an  animal  finds  no 
support  among  educated,  fair-minded  students 
of  history  and  science,  and  it  is  a  great  injustice 
and  unkindness  to  the  negro.  It  is  simply 
foolish  for  the  white  man  to  deny  his  blood 


[9i] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


relationship  with  the  negro.  The  negro  is  the 
white  man’s  far-off  cousin.  Unfortunately  he 
is  sometimes  his  half-brother. 

But  why  all  this  resentment  of  the  thought 
that  man  shares  his  primacy  with  the  apes  and 
monkeys!  Are  all  men  and  women  so  noble 
and  angelic  that  we  are  proud  of  them  all !  And 
are  apes  so  low  in  the  scale  of  being  that  we  can 
not  bear  the  idea  that  some  hundreds  of  thou¬ 
sands  of  years  ago  wre  all  had  a  common  ances¬ 
tor!  Let  us  look  these  facts  squarely  in  the 
face: 

Man  is  at  once  the  glory  and  shame  of  crea¬ 
tion.  He  can  be  an  angel  of  light,  a  saint,  a 
sage,  a  savior,  or  he  can  be  a  devil  incarnate. 
There  is  not  a  devil  in  hell  or  out  of  hell  that 
can  do  meaner  things.  Proof:  Look  at  your 
daily  papers  the  past  few  weeks.  What  do  we 
see !  A  husband  poisoning  his  wife  in  order  to 
marry  another  woman;  a  wife  poisoning  her 
husband  in  order  to  marry  another  man;  a 
minister  planning  the  murder  of  a  woman  in 
order  to  get  her  property,  and  helping  to  com¬ 
mit  the  murder ;  a  minister  murdering  his  half- 
brother  in  order  to  get  his  insurance  money; 


[92] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


sons  in  different  parts  of  the  country  murdering 
their  parents;  a  woman  in  one  of  our  large 
cities  lures  to  her  home  an  innocent  young  girl 
telling  her  that  she  wanted  to  be  a  friend,  and 
wanted  to  show  her  some  nice  clothes.  While 
the  girl  was  trying  on  some  of  those  nice  clothes 
the  woman  left  the  room,  and  turned  her  over 
to  a  brute  man.  The  man  after  beating  the  girl 
into  insensibility  assaulted  her. 

Answer  this  question  at  the  bar  of  your  soul: 
Which  had  you  rather  be,  a  child  of  this  man  or 
woman  or  a  descendant  of  some  anthropoid 
ape?  A  man  or  woman  who  prefers  to  be  de¬ 
scendants  of  such  human  brutes  or  prefers 
blood  relationship  with  them  to  our  lower  kins¬ 
folk,  the  apes,  certainly  has  nothing  to  brag 
about.* 

One  stimulating  thing  about  this  part  of  the 
subject  is  this:  a  great  many  thoughtful  men 
are  no  longer  ashamed  or  afraid  to  claim  kin¬ 
ship  with  lowlier  mammals. 


*  Note  this  from  the  Commercial  Appeal  of  Memphis,  Tenn. 
“One  morning  last  week  a  member  of  the  staff  of  The  Commercial 
Appeal,  coming  into  the  city  on  a  street  car,  heard  an  old  man  say 
this:  ‘Of  all  God’s  creatures,  man  is  the  only  one  endowed  with 
intellect  and  reason,  and  yet  when  I  walk  out  here  on  the  streets  at 
night,  man  is  the  only  one  I  am  afraid  of.’  Of  course  God  makes 
no  mistakes,  hut  we  wonder  if  some  of  the  other  animals  had  been 
endowed  with  intellect,  reason  and  with  a  soul,  if  those  animals 
would  make  better  use  of  these  attributes  than  man.’’ 


[93] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


Bishop  Wilberforce  meant  an  insult  when  he 
asked  Huxley  if  he  was  descended  from  a 
monkey  on  his  grand-mother’s  side  or  his 
grand-father’s:  Huxley  made  the  dignified  re¬ 
ply  that  he  would  rather  be  a  descendant  from 
an  ape  than  from  a  man  who  used  his  great 
powers  to  obscure  the  truth.  Professor  Spang¬ 
ler  was  asked  a  similar  question  by  Mr.  Bryan. 
His  reply  is  a  frank  and  very  instructive  resume 
of  the  origin  and  development  of  man.  He  says : 

“As  to  my  ancestry,  I  will  ‘ expose’  some  of 
it,  not  for  your  benefit,  because  I  think  you 
already  know  it,  but  that  the  public  may  learn 
a  few  of  the  facts  that  prove  evolution.  Also, 
Mr.  Bryan,  you  should  not  be  so  ashamed  of 
your  distinguished  relatives,  the  monkeys  and 
the  apes,  when  you  must  know  that  you  have 
many  lower  relatives  that  even  Darwin  himself 
would  have  been  ashamed  to  claim,  such  as  the 
skunk,  the  lizard,  the  turtle,  and  venomous 
snakes. 

“I  will  begin  my  ancestry  by  naming  the 
protozoa,  from  which  all  other  animal  life 
evolved.  If  you  wish  to  know  more  about  them 
I  refer  you  to  any  text-book  of  zoology.  The 

[94] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


Colonial  Protozoa  come  next  since  they  are 
made  np  of  groups  of  one-celled  animals  like 
my  first  ancestor.  Next  are  the  Matazoa  in 
which  there  are  two  kinds  of  cells,  the  germ  and 
the  somatic  cells.  I  am  proud  of  the  Coelen- 
terates  because  they  are  composed  of  two  cellu¬ 
lar  layers  surrounding  a  gastrovascular  cavity. 

“Others  especially  honored  are  the  Tonaria¬ 
like  animals,  and  other  ancestors.  These  are 
distinguished  because  they  show  the  beginning 
of  structures  which  I  possess  today,  or  have 
had  at  some  stage  of  my  development,  such  as  a 
skeletal  axis  (notochord  or  vertebral  column,) 
paired  slits  connecting  the  pharynx  with  the 
exterior,  and  a  central  nerve-cord  dorsal  to  the 
alimentary  canal. 

“I  claim  the  fishes,  and  reptile-like  animals, 
which  lead  on  through  the  Chordata  to  the 
Monotremata,  egg-laying  mammals.  Also  the 
Insectivora  should  be  mentioned  because  the 
Primates  evolved  from  them. 

“Among  the  Primates  the  Lemur-like  animals 
are  distinguished.  They  have  a  heavy  coating 
of  hair  and  a  tail  longer  than  their  legs.  Finally, 
after  ages  of  evolution,  appeared  Pithecan- 


[95] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


thropus  which  evolved  from  animals  that  also 
produce  the  ape.  This  ape-man  has  part  of  the 
characteristics  of  man  of  to-day  and  part  of  its 
ancestors,  the  latter  of  which  also  appear  in  the 
ape  of  today.  Specialists  on  Anthropology  and 
fossils  believe  that  these  animals  lived  about 
500,000  years  ago. 

“From  the  ape-man  developed  the  Foxhall 
man  followed  by  the  Hiedelbnrg  man  that  lived 
375,000  years  ago.  The  Piltdown  man  lived 
150,000  years  ago;  the  Neanderthal  man,  50,000; 
and  the  Cro-Magnon  man,  25,000.  From  these 
arose  the  Magdalenian  people  followed  by  man 
of  to-dav. 

“That  my  ancestry  is  correct  is  proven  by 
facts  established  by  historical  Geology,  Paleon¬ 
tology,  Embryology,  the  similarity  of  struc¬ 
ture  in  existing  forms,  and  precipitation  blood 
tests. 

“There  is  a  steady  but  small  increase  of 
brain  among  the  land  vertebrates  from  the 
amphibia  into  the  egg-laying  mammals.  The 
rapid  development  of  mentality  comes  later 
when  in  most  stocks  of  placental  mammals  there 
is  increasing  power  of  discernment  and  better 

[96] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


adaptation  to  the  environment.  The  culmination 
of  the  brain  in  size  and  complexity  of  structure 
begins  in  the  Lemurs,  increasing  greatly  in  the 
ape-man,  and  reaching  its  climax  in  man.  In 
the  ape-man,  the  brain  weighed  twenty-eight 
ounces  while  in  man  the  average  weight  is 
forty-nine  ounces. 

f  ‘Thus  we  see  that  ascending  life  grows  nobler 
until  it  is  crowned  with  Spirit.  ‘  Reason  is  dis¬ 
closed  in  the  astounding  plan  of  lower  and 
intermediate  life.  And  a  Soul,  all  truth  and 
Holiness,  shines  upon  our  eyes  at  the  peak  of 
life.’  ‘That  is  when  the  brain  developed  suffi- 
cientlv  so  that  the  animal  could  discern  between 
right  and  wrong  if  given  the  idea,  God  breathed 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life;  and  man 
became  a  living  Soul ~7] 

“Evidently  man  evolved  from  a  single  pre~ 
human  species  and,  as  just  indicated,  must  be 
very  old.  All  the  various  races  must  have  been 
very  slowly  attained.  At  this  point,  Mr.  Bryan, 
let  me  ask  you  how  you  account  for  all  the 
various  races  of  men,  if  all  descended  from 
Adam,  as  vou  sav,  and  if  climatic  and  environ- 

7  1/  •/  7 


[97] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


mental  changes  do  not  affect  living  beings  and 
cause  them  to  change  also? 

“In  the  embryological  development  of  man, 
as  well  as  of  other  animals,  the  embryo  passes 
through  many  of  the  stages  through  which  man 
passed  in  the  evolutionary  process  from  the 
unicellular  animal  to  his  present  state.  As  an 
embryo,  I  passed  through  stages  that  clearly 
represent  the  animal  mentioned  above  as  my 
ancestors.  At  the  beginning  of  my  existence,  I 
was  a  small  one-celled  animal  like  a  Protozoan. 
At  another  stage  of  development  I  was  a  tiny 
sac-shaped  mass,  like  the  Metazoan  and  Coelen- 
terates,  without  blood  or  nerves;  at  another 
stage  I  was  a  worm-like  animal  with  a  pul¬ 
sating  tube  instead  of  a  heart  and  without  a 
head,  neck,  spinal  column  or  limbs;  at  another 
stage,  I  had  as  a  backbone,  a  rod  of  cartilage 
extending  along  the  back  and  a  faint  nerve- 
cord  as  in  the  Amphloxus,  one  of  the  lowest  of 
the  chordates;  at  a  later  stage,  I  was  a 
fish-like  animal  with  a  two  chambered  heart, 
mesonephric  kidneys,  and  gill-slits  with  arteries 
leading  to  them,  just  as  in  fishes;  at  another 
stage,  I  was  a  reptile-like  animal  with  a  three- 

08] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


chambered  heart,  and  Cloaca  development  like 
other  reptiles;  at  still  another  stage,  I  was  a 
Lemur-like  animal  with  a  heavy  coat  of  hair  and 
a  tail  longer  than  my  legs  just  as  in  the  Lemurs; 
and  finally  when  I  entered  upon  post-natal  sins 
and  actualities,  I  was  a  sprawling,  squalling, 
unreasoning  quadruped  partially  fitted  for  an 
arboreal  existence.  ’ ’ 

One  reason  some  people  are  unwilling  to 
claim  kinship  with  lowlier  forms  of  life,  or  to 
study  arguments  bearing  on  the  subject,  is  be¬ 
cause  they  are  snobs,  downright  snobs.  You 
see  them  every  day.  Let  a  man  or  woman  rise 
in  the  world  as  far  as  position  and  money  are 
concerned.  See  how  easily  they  forget  their 
humbler  brothers  and  sisters,  who  are  poor  and 
may  be  illiterate.  Let  a  woman  get  a  few  dol¬ 
lars  ahead,  and  she  will  tell  you  “she  never 
buys  anything  at  the  ‘five  and  ten  cent  store/ 
and  she  ‘  just  can ’t  ride  on  a  street  car. ?  ’ 9  She 
“cuts”  her  aunts  and  uncles  and  cousins  who 
make  less  pretensions.  Some  people  will  go  to 
almost  any  length  to  prove  —  and  they  often 
fail  for  lack  of  any  foundation  —  that  they 
are  lineal  descendants  of  Governor  Brown  or 


[99] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


General  Smith.  The  history  of  the  human  race 
is  full  of  such  efforts  of  some  people  to  connect 
themselves  with  some  illustrious  families.  The 
ancients  were  still  more  ridiculous.  Some  of 
the  great  men  or  their  friends  endeavored  to 
make  it  appear  that  they  were  descended  from 
the  gods.  Julius  Caesar  claimed  to  be  a 
lineal  descendent  of  Venus.  Snobbery,  down¬ 
right  snobbery!  Let  us  cease  to  be  snobs,  and 
consider  calmly  and  intelligently  the  arguments 
in  support  of  the  facts  that  touch  upon  our 
descent  from  the  humbler  forms  of  life  such  as 
the  protozoan,  marsupials,  and  apes.  This  does 
not  mean  that  God  had  nothing  to  do  with  our 
origin.  God  made  the  protozoan  and  other  ani¬ 
mals  just  as  truly  as  he  made  man. 

Let  us  consider  another  side  of  the  subject 
that  ought  to  dispel  our  prejudice  against  evo¬ 
lution.  I  have  just  shown  that  one  has  not 
said  necessarily  a  very  inspiring  thing  when  he 
says  he  is  descended  from  man,  for  it  is  plain 
that  some  men  and  women  —  vastly  too  many 
—  are  worse  than  the  common  brute.  Let  us 
consider  the  ape  —  our  primordial  kins-people, 

[IOO] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


and  see  if  they  are  after  all  so  very  low  and 
unworthy. 

The  apes  come  nearer  keeping  the  laws  which 
God  has  stamped  on  their  being  than  man  does 

—  or  rather  than  some  do.  Proof:  An  ape  will 
steal  food,  but  when  he  has  food  he  will  not 
murder  nor  rob  widows  and  orphans  to  get  it 

—  some  men  do.  Apes  will  tight  to  the  death 
for  their  lives,  for  their  offspring  and  for  their 
mates,  but  they  commit  no  murder,  and  they 
do  not  kill  in  revenge. 

Dr.  Bernard  Hollander,  a  London  scientist,  as 
reported  by  The  New  York  Herald  and  the 
Commercial  Appeal  of  Memphis,  has  this  tine 
word  for  our  far-away  cousins : 

“We  have  much  to  learn  from  the  lower 
orders  of  nature  about  perfect  monogamy. 
Among  anthropoid  apes,  for  example,  you  have 
an  almost  perfect  instance  of  single  attachment 
between  male  and  female.  The  mother  love  of 
the  ape  is  unparalleled  in  the  animal  world  and 
scarcely  equalled  by  mankind. 

“We  need  restoration  of  the  plain  old- 
fashioned  sense  of  loyalty.  Loyalty  which 
makes  men  stand  by  each  other  in  peril  should 


[I0I1 


Evolution  and  Religion 


make  men  stand  by  their  chosen  partner  in  the 
battle  of  life.  It  is  all  a  constant  war  between 
intemperance  and  control.  The  war  has  created 
an  artificial  sense  of  independence  among 
women,  but  it  is  the  national  home  life  environ¬ 
ment  that  will  prevail  over  what  I  believe  is  a 
passing  phase/ ’ 

If  any  apology  is  dne  to  any  one  because  of 
man’s  kinship  with  apes  apologize  to  the  apes! 
If  they  could  speak  they  might  say  they  would 
rather  be  the  humble  ape  obeying  the  laws  God 
has  stamped  on  their  being  than  to  be  the  hu¬ 
man  brutes  I  have  described  above. 

One  of  the  awful  things  about  man’s  fall  into 
infamous  crimes  is  this:  When  he  falls  he  falls 
not  to  the  level  of  the  brute,  but  below  it. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  case  cited  above  where 
a  woman,  under  the  pretense  of  friendship, 
lured  a  young,  innocent  working  girl  to  her 
home,  and  then  turned  her  over  to  the  beastly 
assault  of  a  man.  No  common  brute  ever  did 
anything  as  mean  as  that. 

A  writer  in  one  of  our  papers  in  trying  to 
evade  the  force  of  the  above  argument,  and  to 
excuse  or  palliate  the  crime,  says  the  “  Devil 

[102] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


is  too  busy  tempting  man  to  fool  with  mon¬ 
keys.  ”  But  you  can  not  explain  man’s  crimes 
on  the  score  that  the  devil  tempted  him.  You 
can  not  get  anywhere  with  that  argument.  If 
the  devil  is  to  blame  why  do  the  courts  punish 
men?  This  plea  that  the  devil  tempts  men  will 
do  you  no  good  whatsoever  in  a  court  of  law. 

Trv  it  and  see.  Go  into  a  court  of  law  and  tell 
%/ 

the  Judge  and  jury  that  the  devil  tempted  you 
to  steal  the  automobile,  or  to  murder,  or  to  run 
away  with  another  man’s  wife.  See  what  the 
Judge  and  jury  will  say  to  that  plea.  Nor  will 
you  find  any  comfort  in  the  Bible.  Adam  and 
Eve  could  not  escape.  Look  the  passages  up 
carefully,  and  you  will  find  that  the  firmest, 
plainest  teaching  is  that  God  judges  man  “  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  deeds  done  in  the  body,”  that 
“man  suffers  for  his  own  sins.” 

The  truth,  the  awful  truth,  is  that  man  is 
shamed  bv  the  beast  of  the  field.  When  he 
commits  some  heinous  crime  he  falls  below  the 
brute.  This  being  true  we  should  not  be  preju¬ 
diced  against  the  teachings  of  biology  which 
show  resemblances  of  the  child  before  birth  and 
after  to  apes  and  other  lower  animal  forms 

[I03] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


from  wliicli  it  is  claimed  man  has  descended. 
That  brings  ns  to  consider  the  eighth  argument: 

EIGHTH:  Resemblances  between  parent 
and  child  — 

Similarity  in  development  of  human  Embyro 
and  lower  Forms. 

Resemblance  between  parents  and  their  chil¬ 
dren  has  been  noticed  and  commented  on  per¬ 
haps  by  parents  and  friends  ever  since  the 
intelligence  of  parents  enabled  them  to  see  re¬ 
semblances.  All  over  the  world  to-day  and  as 
far  back  as  we  have  had  a  history  this  subject  is 
a  constant  theme  of  parents  and  friends.  How 
many  millions  of  times  is  it  being  said  daily  all 
over  the  world :  4  ‘  why,  that  boy  is  just  like  his 
father or,  “the  girl  is  just  like  her  mother,’ ’ 
or,  “it  has  its  mother’s  nose  and  mouth,  its 
father’s  eves  and  hair.” 

In  spite  of  individuality  which  belongs  to 
every  one  how  very  striking  are  the  resem¬ 
blances  between  parents  and  their  children. 
Sometimes  resemblances  skip  for  two  or  three 
generations.  Sometimes  parents  and  friends 
can  not  account  for  the  features  of  some  of  their 
children,  because  the  parents  have  never  seen 

II04] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


or  have  forgotten  the  features  of  their  own  par¬ 
ents  and  grand-parents.  But  suppose  some 
neighbor  has  known  intimately  the  child’s 
grand-parents  and  great-grand-parents.  When 
the  neighbor  sees  the  child  he  sees  resemblances 
not  to  the  father  or  mother,  but  to  some  grand¬ 
parent,  or  to  some  aunt  or  uncle.  This  also  is 
a  common  occurrence.  Sometimes  parents  are 
indebted  to  their  neighbors  for  having  known 
their  children’s  grand-parents,  and  collateral 
kin,  and  are  able  to  point  out  resemblances.  We 
see  all  this  resemblance,  however,  after  the  child 
is  born  and  has  grown  up ;  and  we  all  admit  that 
we  see  very  little  resemblance  to  the  ape  and  the 
ancient  marsupials,  our  far-away  kin.  But  we 
do  see  a  little.  If  you  want  to  make  an  original 
scientific  observation  here  is  your  opportunity : 
The  next  time  you  are  in  the  presence  of  a  week- 
old  babe  take  hold  of  its  hand  with  one  of  your 
fingers.  You  will  find  you  can  lift  it  up  com¬ 
pletely  above  its  crib,  and  it  will  remain  sus¬ 
pended  from  ten  seconds  to  one  or  two  minutes 
before  turning  loose.  But  after  six  weeks,  al¬ 
though  it  may  not  have  gained  more  than  a 
pound  in  weight  —  maybe  not  that  —  it  can  not 


[ 1  °5  ] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


remain  suspended  at  all.  Why  this  remarkable 
phenomenon!  Scientists  tell  us  that  the  babe’s 
ability  to  sustain  its  weight  is  an  inheritance 
from  its  aboreal  ancestors.  Our  ancestors 
swung  from  tree  to  tree  in  mirthful  glee  or  in 
fear  of  the  enemy  for  thousands  and  thousands 
of  years,  and  they  acquired  a  very  great  prehen- 
sible  ability,  and  this  ability  crops  out  as  an 
inheritance  in  the  new-born  babe.  Let  the  babe 
get  its  fingers  in  your  hair  or  whiskers  and  see 
what  happens!  Yet  the  baby’s  muscles  are 
flabby  and  untrained.  Its  strength  is  an  inheri¬ 
tance  from  its  ape  ancestry.  When  the  child 
becomes  a  man  you  will  see  two  teeth,  one  on 
each  side  of  the  incisors,  called  by  all  dentists 
and  scientists  “dog-teeth”  or  “canine  teeth.” 
Why!  Because  they  are  very  much  like  the  two 
teeth  in  dogs  similarly  situated. 

Did  you  ever  see  an  angry  dog  or  an  angry 
man  snarl!  There  is  a  decided  similarity  be¬ 
tween  the  two.  Both  show  their  sharp,  canine 
teeth. 

Unless  a  woman  has  been  trained  to  fight  with 
her  fists  she  fights  naturally  and  instinctively 
with  the  palm  side  of  her  wrist,  and  in  this  way 

[i°6] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


she  can  give  a  very  good  account  of  herself. 
She  gets  this  from  her  Chimpanzee  ancestors. 
The  Chimpanzee  is  without  doubt  the  greatest 
wrist  fighter  in  the  world.  There  is  no  animal 
his  size  and  no  man  five  or  ten  times  his  size 
that  can  conquer  him  with  bare  hands.  Some 
years  ago  the  Geographical  Magazine  published 
an  article  by  an  explorer  in  Africa  setting  forth 
the  powers  of  the  Chimpanzee.  His  story  in 
brief  was  this:  while  he  and  the  African  chief 
were  away  from  the  chief’s  hut  where  the  ex¬ 
plorer  was  staying,  the  chief’s  young  son  heard 
a  noise  out  in  the  bushes,  and  taking  the  explor¬ 
er ’s  gun  went  out,  saw  a  chimpanzee,  and  shot 
at  him  wounding  him  slightly.  Then  the  negro 
boy  threw  the  gun  down,  and  ran  back  to  the 
hut.  When  the  explorer  and  the  chief  returned 
the  boy  told  them  what  had  happened.  The 
chief  said  he  would  take  a  club  and  a  big  knife 
and  finish  the  wounded  chimpanzee.  He  went 
out,  found  the  chimpanzee,  and  they  engaged 
in  a  fierce  fight.  Although  the  chief  was  over 
six  feet  tall  and  a  perfect  specimen  of  physical 
manhood,  and  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  chim¬ 
panzee  was  wounded,  in  less  than  ten  minutes, 


Evolution  and  Religion 


before  help  could  come,  be  bad  killed  tbe  chief, 
beating  bim  literally  into  a  pulp  with  tbe  palm 
side  of  bis  wrists.  Women  may  not  admire  tbe 
chimpanzee  because  of  bis  lack  of  dignity  in 
traveling  too  much  on  all-fours,  and  for  some 
other  evidences  of  imperfection,  judged  from 
the  human  standpoint;  nevertheless,  we  can 
not  withhold  our  admiration  for  the  chim¬ 
panzee’s  courage  and  physical  prowess.  Furth¬ 
ermore,  there  ought  to  be  an  unbroken  bond  of 
sympathy  between  mothers  and  the  chimpanzee : 
first,  because  the  woman  can  put  up  a  very 
worthy  defense  with  her  wrist  as  the  chim¬ 
panzee  does,  and,  second,  because  a  woman’s 
offspring  gets  about  on  its  all-fours  for  months 
in  unconscious  imitation  of  its  primordial  for¬ 
bears. 

Some  people  seriously  object  to  our  kinship 
with  tbe  anthropoid  apes  because  the  tails  of 
some  of  them  are  very  obvious.  How  unscien¬ 
tific  and  unreasonable  is  that  objection!  While 
the  tail  of  man  is  not  obvious,  it  is  nevertheless 
there.  If  you  doubt  this,  get  a  competent  sur¬ 
geon  to  cut  through  the  skin  in  the  lower  part 
of  your  backbone:  there  you  will  see  a  rudi- 

[108] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


mentary  tail  with  muscles  to  work  it.  Professor 
Henry  Drummond  says  this  is  the  “scaffold¬ 
ing”  left  in  Man  to  show  his  descent  from  lower 
forms.  ‘  ‘  The  organs  of  a  chimpanzee  are  almost 
identical  with  those  of  a  man,  and  the  blood  of 
one  can  hardly  be  distinguished  from  that  of 
the  other.” 

As  further  proof  of  descent  from  lower  forms 
let  us  consider  the  development  of  the  human 
embryo  from  its  microscopic  germ  cell.  I  once 
read  a  paper  on  evolution  before  a  ministers  ’ 
Association,  and  the  following  remarkable 
statement  was  elicited:  One  minister  said  he 
had  always  thought  that  the  human  embryo 
began  its  existence  with  microscopic  legs,  lungs, 
hands,  bones,  nervous  system  and  all,  and  that 
the  only  thing  necessary  was  for  it  to  grow! 

It  would  not  be  surprising  if  half  the  people 
thought  that  way  to-day. 

Every  student  of  biology  knows  that  is  not 
the  case.  The  embryo  begins  as  a  microscopic 
germ  cell  almost  entirely  homogeneous  in  struc¬ 
ture.  There  is  no  suspicion  of  bones,  muscles, 
nerves  —  no  outlines  whatever  of  a  human  be¬ 
ing.  The  first  change  that  takes  place  is  the 

P°9] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


multiplication  of  the  cells;  then  there  is  a  di¬ 
vision  into  three  layers  of  cells,  and  out  of 
these  comes  the  hack-bone,  nervous  system, 
blood  system,  by  a  wonderful  process  of  dif¬ 
ferentiation  and  growth.  The  most  important 
thing  to  note  in  the  process  of  the  embryo  from 
cell  to  the  maturity  of  the  embryo  is  that  in 
certain  stages  of  the  embryo’s  development  it 
shows  gill-slits  like  the  fish.  Sometimes  the 
marks  or  the  scars  of  the  gill-slits  are  seen  on 
the  neck  of  the  child  after  birth,  and  remain 
there  through  life.  The  embryo  has  no  need  j 
whatsoever  of  the  gill-slits,  as  it  is  a  lung¬ 
breathing  animal.  The  scientists’  belief  is  that 
man  on  his  upward  progress  to  become  Man 
passed  through  the  fish  stage,  hence  this  relic 
of  gill-slits.  Is  not  this  a  reasonable  explana¬ 
tion?  In  one  stage  of  its  development  the  tail 
of  the  human  embryo  is  longer  than  its  body. 
Does  all  this  mean  nothing?  Does  it  not  mean 
kinship  in  the  remote  past?  Note  this  state¬ 
ment  of  a  recent  scientist  quoted  from  the 
Outlook: 

“It  is  absolutely  certain  that  every  reader 
of  this  article  physically  passed  through  some 

[no] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


animal  forms  in  the  mother’s  womb  before 
birth.  The  creation  of  the  body  was  in  every 
one  of  ns  a  process  of  evolution.  George  John 
Romanes  in  Darwin  and  After  Darwin  makes 
this  perfectly  clear: 

“Like  that  of  all  other  organisms,  unicellular 
or  multicellular,  his  (man’s)  development  starts 
from  the  nucleus  of  a  single  cell  ....  When 
his  animality  becomes  established,  he  exhibits 
the  fundamental  anatomical  qualities  which 
characterize  such  lowly  animals  as  polypus  and 
jelly-fish,  and  even  when  he  is  marked  off  as  the 
vertebrate  it  can  not  be  said  whether  he  is  to  be 
a  fish,  a  reptile,  a  bird,  or  a  beast.  Later  on  it 
becomes  evident  that  he  is  to  be  a  mammal;  but 
not  till  later  can  it  be  said  to  which  order  of 
mammals  he  belongs. 

“Romanes  enforces  this  statement  by  print¬ 
ing  illustrations  of  the  various  forms  which 
it  is  known  man  passes  through  before  birth. 
Printed  side  by  side,  they  show  embryos  of  a 
fish,  a  salamander,  a  tortoise,  a  bird,  a  hog,  a 
calf,  a  rabbit,  and  a  man  in  three  successive 
stages  of  development,  and  in  them,  as  Romanes 
truly  says,  ‘  there  is  very  little  difference 

[in] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


between  the  eight  animals  at  the  earliest  of  the 
three  stages  represented,  all  having  fish-like 
tails,  gill-slits,  and  so  on.’  ” 

The  tail  of  the  human  embryo  becomes  grad¬ 
ually  absorbed,  and  all  that  remains  of  the  tail 
in  the  mature  skeleton  is  the  coccyx,  three  to 
five  vertebrae.  And  strange  to  say  the  rudimen¬ 
tary  muscles  are  still  there  which  formerly 
moved  the  tail.  These  are  some  of  the  resem¬ 
blances  between  man  and  the  lower  forms  be¬ 
fore  and  after  birth  which  suggest  relationship 
in  a  far-off  time,  which  argue  the  fact  that  man 
and  these  lower  forms  had  a  common  ancestry. 
These  facts  constitute  one  of  the  strongest  argu¬ 
ments  in  favor  of  evolution.  One  of  the  surest 
facts  in  biology  is  that  like  begets  like.  When 
we  see  so  many  resemblances  we  say  there  must 
have  been  a  blood  relationship. 

Another  remarkable  fact  in  biology  is  that 
unlike  begets  unlike.  The  protozoan  is  the  first 
and  simplest  form  of  animal  life.  It  propagates 
its  kind  by  simple  division.  The  cells  are  en¬ 
tirely  separate.  Sometimes  the  divided  cells 
cling  together.  Not  much  difference,  but  a 
difference,  unlikeness. 


[112] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


In  tlie  metazoans,  a  species  of  the  protozoan, 
the  structure  is  a  little  more  complex.  There 
are  structural  units  within  the  metazoans  that 
perform  separate  functions.  One  set  of  cells 
serve  as  stimuli,  other  cells  perform  other  func¬ 
tions.  There  is  therefore  greater  unlikeness 
between  the  metazoans  and  the  one-cell  pro¬ 
tozoan.  In  other  species  of  protozoa  there  is 
still  further  complexity;  some  are  naked;  some 
have  shells.  The  complexity  increases  as  you 
ascend  from  the  protozoan.  When  you  look 
at  the  protozoan  you  would  hardly  imagine 
that  it  was  the  progenitor  of  these  more 
complex  forms,  so  great  is  the  unlikeness. 
But  in  the  study  of  Botany  and  Biology  we 
come  across  the  most  astonishing  examples 
of  unlikeness  where  there  is  a  real  descent. 
Take  for  instance  the  relationship  between 
strawberry,  raspberry,  pear,  peach,  apple, 
rose  —  all  descendants  of  a  rose-bush  ancestor 
—  we  could  scarcely  imagine  that  they  had  the 
same  common  ancestry.  Same  is  true  of  fishes 
and  birds.  In  other  words  we  can  not  judge 
from  the  finished  product  what  the  beginning 
was.  Unlikeness  should  not  hinder  our  belief. 


Evolution  and  Religion 


In  this  connection  let  ns  consider  the  beginning 
of  the  hnman  embryo.  If  it  were  not  for  the 
careful  scientific  research  which  has  placed  all 
the  facts  before  ns  we  would  never  suppose 
that  the  tiny  microscopic  germ-cell  was  the 
mother  and  father  of  the  new-horn  babe,  and, 
later  on,  of  the  full-grown  man.  What  a  dif¬ 
ference,  what  unlikeness,  between  the  simple 
one-cell  protoplasm  and  the  fullgrown  man! 

NINTH:  Arguments  from  Rocks. 

Another  argument  in  favor  of  evolution  that 
I  shall  consider  is  the  argument  from  the  rocks. 
The  facts  are  these:  Scientists  said  if  evolution 
is  true  the  higher  forms  of  life  have  come  out 
of  lower  forms  by  gradual  transformation  — 
“descent  with  modifications,”  and  that  if  we 
had  any  trustworthy  record  of  the  succession 
of  life  on  the  globe  it  would  show  this  fact.  A 
study  of  the  stratified  rocks  showed  just  what 
the  evolutionists  predicted  it  would  show. 
Rocks  where  life  has  been  found  were  formed 
by  the  gradual  wearing  down  of  hills,  moun¬ 
tains,  and  the  vegetation  that  grew  there,  and 
were  deposited  at  the  bottom  of  seas,  lakes,  and 
rivers.  The  lowest  rocks  were  the  first  that 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


were  formed.  This  gradual  formation  went  on 
for  ages.  By  and  by  there  was  an  upheaval. 
Due  to  some  great  convulsion  of  the  earth  this 
first  layer  of  rock  came  to  the  surface.  Upon 
this  rock  was  deposited  earth,  and  upon  it  grew 
grass,  weeds,  and  various  forms  of  animal  life. 
And  there  came  a  subsidence,  due  also  to  earth¬ 
quake  or  some  other  kind  of  convulsion  of  the 
earth,  and  this  first  layer  of  rock  with  all  the 
life  that  was  on  it  went  down  to  the  bottom  of 
the  sea.  Again  the  current  began  to  do  the 
work  it  had  done  before:  the  water  washed 
down  from  the  hills  and  mountains,  gravel,  sand, 
etc.,  and  covered  up  the  weeds  and  animals, 
and  their  skeletons  lie  there  to-day  to  tell  the 
tale.  They  have  been  preserved,  just  as  the 
inhabitants  of  Pompeii  were  preserved  for 
nearly  two  thousand  years,  before  excavations 
unearthed  the  City,  and  showed  the  life  of  that 
day  in  most  wonderful  detail. 

And  this  is  not  the  end  of  the  story;  a  second 
layer  of  rock  was  formed  covering  up  com¬ 
pletely  the  first  forms  of  vegetable  and  animal 
life.  Again  there  was  an  upheaval:  again 
there  was  grown  vegetation  and  animal  life, 


Evolution  and  Religion 


and  again  there  was  a  subsidence.  These  up¬ 
heavals,  growth  of  vegetal  and  animal  forms, 
and  subsidence  followed  each  other  at  irregular 
intervals  of  time,  and  are  going  on  at  the  present 
day. 

What  the  geologists  found,  and  are  still  find¬ 
ing  today,  is  this :  in  the  very  oldest  rocks  there 
is  no  evidence  of  animal  life,  but  simple  vege¬ 
table  forms.  This,  they  say,  is  proof  that  plants 
came  first.  Then  in  the  next  stratum  they  find 
animal  life  in  its  simplest  forms.  In  still  higher 
strata  there  are  higher  forms  of  animal  life. 
There  is  found  everywhere  a  succession  of 
higher  forms  following  lower.  This  is  strong 
proof  that  the  higher  forms  were  evolved  out  of 
the  lower  by  descent  with  modifications.  When 
other  facts  are  taken  into  consideration,  finding 
all  the  connecting  links  of  the  horse,  it  is  looked 
upon  as  a  demonstration.  The  records  of  the 
rocks  are  fragmentary,  not  all  the  facts  of  life 
have  been  recorded  or  preserved.  This  is  what 
might  be  expected.  This  imperfect  record  is 
due  to  erosions  which  in  some  instances  have 
destroyed  the  record,  to  change  of  climate,  to 
migrations  and  other  causes.  If  the  record  was 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


complete,  no  breaks  in  it,  there  would  be  a 
complete  history  of  the  succession  of  forms 
from  the  lowest  to  the  highest  life.  Even  as  it 
is  evolutionists  have  been  able  to  trace  the  life 
history  of  some  forms  completely,  showing  their 
development  from  very  low,  imperfect  forms  to 
their  present  state  of  perfection.  This  is  true 
of  the  horse  and  Planorbis. 

Professor  Marsh,  an  American  of  whom  we 
all  should  be  proud,  after  years  of  painstaking 
labor,  showed  the  development  of  the  horse 
from  a  three-toed  ancestor  about  the  size  of  the 
fox  on  and  up  through  various  ancestors  to  the 
one-toed  horse  as  we  find  him  to-day.  This 
record  is  complete.  The  side-splints  which  we 
find  in  horses  to-day  are  evidences  of  the  tliree- 
toed  ancestor.  The  Planorbis  has  been  studied 
by  Professors  Hilgendorf  and  Hylatt  with  re¬ 
markable  results.  The  Planorbis  consists  of 
various  fresh-water,  air-breathing  mollusks 
found  in  stratified  rocks  near  Steinheim,  Ger¬ 
many.  “In  passing  from  the  lowest  to  the 
highest  strata  the  species  change  greatly  and 
many  times,  the  extreme  forms  being  so  differ¬ 
ent  that,  were  it  not  for  the  intermediate  forms 


Evolution  and  Religion 


they  would  be  called  not  only  different  species 
but  different  genera.  And  yet  the  gradations 
are  so  insensible  (so  gradual)  that  the  whole 
series  is  nothing  less  than  a  demonstration,  in 
this  case  at  least,  of  origin  of  species  by  deriva¬ 
tion  with  modifications. ’ ’  (LeConte  in  Evolu¬ 
tion  and  Religion ,  page  236-7). 

There  also  have  been  found  in  the  rocks 
records  of  other  animal  forms  more  or  less 
complete  until  there  came  a  break  in  the  rocks. 
The  work  of  investigation  among  the  rocks  is 
still  going  on,  conducted  by  governments  and 
by  some  of  the  leading  universities.  All  the 
facts  that  are  being  obtained  tend  to  show 
greater  completeness,  and  throws  more  light 
on  the  contentions  of  evolutionists  that  suc¬ 
cession  in  geologic  times  means  derivation  of 
one  form  from  another. 

TENTH:  There  are  many  arguments  in  favor 
of  evolution.  When  you  put  them  all  together, 
a  little  here,  a  little  there,  it  is  a  most  convinc¬ 
ing  array  of  facts  in  support  of  its  truth.  I 
shall  mention  only  one  other  argument,  the  one 
from  rudimentary  and  useless  organs. 

Biologists  find  in  the  horse,  splint  bones  which 

[ns] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


mark  his  descent  from  a  three-toed  ancestor. 
The  splint  bones  are  useless,  but  they  remain 
to  tell  the  tale  of  its  former  ancestry.  If  made 
by  special  creation,  made  by  hand,  would  they 
have  been  put  there  ?  The  appendix  in  man  was 
once  a  useful  organ  in  some  remote  ancestor. 
If  man  was  made  by  special  creation  would  it 
have  been  left  in  man?  “The  baleen  whales 
have  no  teeth,  and  no  use  for  them.  Yet  the 
embrvo  of  the  whale  has  a  full  set  of  rudimen- 

V 

tary  teeth  deeply  buried  in  the  jawbone,  and 
formed  in  the  usual  way  characteristic  of 
mammalian  teeth,  bat  the  teeth  are  never  cut.” 

Teeth  were  useful  to  some  of  the  ancestors 
of  the  whale,  but  their  changed  manner  of  living 
made  them  useless,  and  they  became  absorbed. 
If  the  baleen  whale  had  been  made  by  special 
creation  do  you  think  the  rudimentary  teeth 
which  were  never  cut,  would  have  been  made, 
and  deeply  buried  in  the  jawbone?  Why  should 
there  be  a  tail  in  the  human  embryo?  The  tail 
is  not  needed  by  the  embryo.  Can  there  be  any 
better  reason  than  that  it  was  once  a  very  real 
and  necessary  organ  of  our  remote  ancestors, 
and  has  come  down  as  an  inheritance? 


Evolution  and  Religion 


These  are  some  of  the  evidences  of  the  truth 
of  evolution  briefly  stated.  Evolutionists  have 
brought  together  a  great  number  of  facts  to 
support  their  position.  These  facts  should  be 
faced  fairly,  and  we  should  consider  the  subject 
in  the  light  of  sober,  intelligent  judgment. 

The  anti-evolutionist  imagines  he  has  made  a 
very  weighty  objection  to  evolution  when  he 
asks  whether  any  one  has  ever  seen  one  species 
change  into  another  species? 

Species  are  not  made  that  rapidly.  It  is  too 
much  to  expect  a  wolf  to  change  into  a  pointer 
dog  ‘  ‘  while  you  wait.  ’  ’  No  evolutionist  has  ever 
taught  that  species  are  made  in  the  life  time  of 
any  one  man.  So  it  is  very  evident  that  no  one 
ever  saw  one  species  change  into  another.  What 
people  have  seen  and  are  seeing  is  variation, 
change,  such  great  unlikeness  between  the  dif¬ 
ferent  varieties  of  dogs,  for  instance,  that  as 
LeConte  says,  if  they  were  found  in  a  state  of 
nature  the  extreme  varieties  would  be  called 
different  species. 

Another  fact  must  be  considered:  “Natural 
Selection’ *  works  very  slowly.  It  takes  many 
thousands  of  years  for  the  accumulation  of 

[I2°] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


differences  that  result  in  species.  Bnt  what  man 
has  not  seen  with  his  own  eyes  geology  has 
enabled  him  to  see  as  he  studies  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  life  in  the  pages  of  stratified  rocks. 
There  he  sees  the  evidences  of  the  offspring  of 
one  species  of  birds  changing  gradually  into 
another  species.  In  some  instances  all  or  most 
all  the  missing  links  have  been  found.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  horse  and  plenorbis.  Here 
is  evidence  that  satisfies  millions  of  students  of 
science  that  some  birds  and  the  horse,  and  the 
plenorbis  have  come  to  their  present  state  of 
development  by  gradual  changes  from  the  lower 
to  the  higher,  from  one  species  into  another 
species.  Evolutionists  are  not  slow  to  admit 
that  species  are  now  more  permanent  than  in 
the  past.  Ages  and  ages  ago  conditions  were 
such  that  species  were  more  plastic,  and  there¬ 
fore  there  were  greater  changes.  The  older  the 
species  and  the  more  specialized  the  less  liable 
to  change. 

But  has  any  one  ever  seen  God  make  man 
and  other  animals  ‘  ‘  with  his  hands  and  fingers ’  ’ 
or  “with  the  word  of  his  mouth V’  Did  any 
man  since  man  has  been  on  the  earth  see  the 


[121] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


work  done,  and  then  testify  to  it?  If  the  first 
account  of  creation  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  is  true,  Adam  was  made  last,  and  there¬ 
fore,  had  no  opportunity  of  seeing  the  creation 
of  plants  and  the  other  animals.  If  the  second 
account  is  true  Adam  did  have  the  opportunity 
of  seeing  the  creation,  because  he  was  made 
before  the  plants  and  animals,  but  never  for 
once  did  he  say  he  saw  God  make  things  with 
his  hands  and  fingers  or  any  other  way. 

That  idea  that  God  made  everything  “per¬ 
fect”  has  no  warrant  in  any  plain  declaration 
of  Scripture  nor  is  it  a  reasonable  deduction 
from  the  facts  of  Scriptures.  Search  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  and  see  if  you  can  find  anywhere  a  state¬ 
ment  that  He  made  everything  perfect.  In  the 
account  of  creation  God  is  referred  to  as  having 
said  that  the  things  He  made  were  “very 
good.”  Ezekiel  declares  that  God  made  man 
“upright;”  but  nowhere  in  the  Bible  does  God 
or  any  one  else  say  that  man  or  other  creatures 
were  made  perfect. 

If  Adam  was  made  perfect  he  was  about  as 
sorry  a  specimen  of  perfection  as  the  eyes  of 
man  ever  looked  upon.  We  have  some  patience 

[122] 


Some  of  the  Evidences  of  Evolution 


and  respect  for  the  man  who  when  starving  will 
eat  fruit  he  is  commanded  not  to  eat  in  order 
to  live.  But  this  “perfect”  man  Adam  was 
put  into  the  garden  of  Eden  surrounded  with 
everything  that  pleased  the  eye  or  could  satisfy 
hunger.  Not  because  he  was  starving,  but  for 
curiosity  or  some  other  reason  he  took  of  the 
forbidden  fruit,  and  according  to  a  certain  type 
of  theology,  brought  death  and  damnation  to 
three-fourths  of  the  human  race.  This  “per¬ 
fect”  man  fell  before  the  first  temptation  that 
came  in  his  path,  and  it  was  not  a  temptation 
that  was  born  of  hunger  and  want. 

Man  is  not  perfect  to  this  day.  There  is  noth¬ 
ing  perfect  on  earth.  Everything  is  in  a  state 
of  progressive  change.  The  astronomers  tell 
us  that  there  still  remain  immeasurable  realms 
of  starry  mist  where  worlds  are  being  evolved, 
and  may  be  new  plants  and  animals  are  being 
formed. 

If  there  is  anything  perfect  on  earth,  what  is 
it?  It  surely  is  not  man.  Look  at  the  race  riots, 
and  such  murders  as  we  have  at  Meherrin, 
Illinois.  No,  it  is  surely  not  man.  It  can  not 
be  our  industrial  system  which  for  forty  years 


[I23] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


or  more  lias  had  strikes  and  lock-outs  which 
have  cost  the  country  thousands  of  lives  an¬ 
nually,  a  very  great  destruction  of  property, 
and  much  suffering  on  account  of  high  prices? 
And  such  hatreds! 

The  only  hope  for  the  human  race  is  the  tire- 
j  less  working  of  the  ever-patient  God  through 
man  and  in  the  laws  of  nature,  and  the  out- 
stretching  of  man’s  hand  and  heart,  and  soul, 
and  mind  in  his  effort  to  help  God  make  strong 
and  safe  the  world. 


[I24] 


CHAPTER  VII 


EVOLUTION  AND  REVELATION 


ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS  bring  awful 
charges  against  those  who  believe  in 
evolution.  They  say  the  evolutionists 
do  not  believe  in  the  Bible  nor  prayer,  nor  in 
revelation.  These  are  very  serious  delinquen¬ 
cies,  if  true.  They  are  not  true.  These  charges 
are  cruel,  unjust,  and  unwarrantable.  Let  us 
consider  what  is  the  attitude  of  evolution  to¬ 
ward  revelation. 

Revelation  is  really  a  complement  of  Evolu¬ 
tion.  Evolution  deals  with  secondary  causes. 
Evolutionists  say  that  changes  in  organic  life 
are  made  by  the  laws  of  nature,  by  orderly 
processes,  by  forces  that  reside  in  the  organ¬ 
ism.  They  also  say  as  plainly  as  words  can 
make  it  that  there  is  “no  justification  for  the 
materialistic  position  that  there  is  nothing  in 
the  world  but  matter  force,  and  necessity.” 
That  is  to  say,  we  can  not  account  for  this 


05] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


wonderful  world  with  its  beauty  and  goodness 
and  order  and  progress  from  lower  to  higher  on 
the  supposition  that  it  was  made  by  materialis¬ 
tic  forces,  devoid  of  mind  and  purpose.  As 
shown  in  another  chapter,  Darwin,  Huxley,  Wal¬ 
lace,  LeConte,  Fisk,  Conklin,  Spangler  and  a 
host  of  others  have  made  it  as  plain  as  language 
can  make  it  that  Atheism  is  no  explanation  of 
the  existence  of  worlds  and  life.  Whv  not  take 
these  men  at  their  word? 

If  then  it  is  true  that  materialism  and  atheism 
are  not  an  explanation  of  the  origin  of  things, 
no  one  can  deny  the  right  of  the  philosopher 
and  theologian  to  affirm  spirit,  mind,  God  as 
the  true  explanation.  The  Theologian  sees  God 
working  in  two  ways,  as  the  Immanent  God,  the 
God  of  Science,  and  as  the  Transcendent  God, 
the  God  ever  near  his  children  in  time  of  need 
—  the  God  who  answers  prayer. 

The  Immanent  God  works  in  a  masterlv, 

v  7 

rather  autocratic  way,  yet  it  is  best.  The  laws 
of  nature  know  no  favorites.  The  sun  rises  on 
the  good  and  bad  alike,  and  so  do  the  rains 
descend.  Accidental  poison  will  kill  the  good 
man  as  certainly  as  it  will  the  bad.  I  have  seen 


[126] 


Evolution  and  Revelation 


good  crops  come  to  the  man  who  swore  and 
was  not  thankful,  just  exactly  as  they  came  to 
the  minister,  his  good  neighbor.  The  seasons 
come  with  their  heat  and  cold,  sunstrokes  and 
freezing,  life  and  death,  with  an  exactness  that 
is  marvelous.  This  is  the  work  of  the  Immanent 
God.  Man  is  affected  by  the  laws  of  this 
Immanent  God:  he  can  not  escape  them.  In 
many  essential  respects  that  which  happens  to 
him  happens  also  to  the  brute  creation. 

But  Evolution  points  out  with  unmistakable 
clearness  that  man  is  something  more  than  an 
animal.  He  has  something  that  the  lower  ani¬ 
mal  has  not.  Man  has  consciousness;  he  is 
capable  of  abstract  thought;  his  highest  ideals 
are  spiritual;  he  is  the  only  thing  in  creation 
of  which  we  can  affirm  spiritual  kinship  with  the 
great  Over-Soul  through  whom  all  things  have 
come.  In  other  words,  man  is  a  child  of  God. 
As  such  God  deals  with  him  somewhat  as  an 
earthly  father  deals  with  his  children,  by  moral 
suasion,  by  contact  with  his  soul.  Let  me  illus¬ 
trate  this  thought  by  means  of  a  comparison: 
God  is  the  great  Macrocosm.  He  is  the  Soul 
and  Power  behind  all  universal  laws.  Man  is 


07] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


a  microcosm.  He  too  has  a  little  world  of  his 
own.  In  his  world  he  too  does  and  must  do 
somethings  arbitrarily,  not  necessarily,  how¬ 
ever,  contrary  to  reason:  not  necessarily  like  a 
tyrant.  But  in  his  little  world  the  time  often 
comes  when  he  and  he  alone  must  decide  what 
is  to  be  done.  If  he  has  a  ten  acre  field  that 
he  thinks  best  to  plant  in  corn  —  corn  is  planted. 
He  does  not  consult  the  field  nor  any  human 
being  as  to  whether  he  shall  plant  it  in  corn. 
The  responsibility  is  his,  and  he  decides.  He 
thinks  that  some  forest  trees  should  be  cut  into 
wood  or  lumber,  and  so  it  is.  He  does  not  ask 
his  mules  whether  they  should  work  five  days  in 
a  week  or  six,  or  whether  they  should  pull  the 
plow  or  pull  the  wagon.  To  some  extent  man 
is  a  microcosm,  he  is  the  lord  of  a  little  realm. 

But  note  the  difference  in  man’s  conduct  when 
he  comes  to  his  children.  The  sane  father  does 
not  deal  with  children  in  the  same  way  he  deals 
with  his  horse,  his  trees,  his  land.  He  deals 
with  them  upon  a  very  different,  a  much  higher 
plane.  They  are  his  children,  the  father’s  im¬ 
mortal  mind  is  stamped  on  them.  He  deals 
with  them  in  a  way  to  reach  their  minds,  their 

|>8] 


Evolution  and  Revelation 


souls.  His  method  from  beginning  to  end  is 
principally  education,  reason,  persuasion.  Before 
the  child  can  talk  there  is  placed  before  him 
blocks  with  the  A.  B.  C.  ’s;  blocks  with  1,  2,  3, 
pictures  of  horses,  cows,  houses  etc.  By  the 
time  he  can  talk  he  knows  his  letters,  his  figures, 
the  names  of  different  objects,  and  soon  after¬ 
wards  he  learns  to  read.  Then  the  parents  take 
up  the  question  of  schools;  then  they  begin  to 
talk  to  the  child  face  to  face  about  the  great 
problems  of  life,  life’s  glory,  its  shame,  the 
pitfalls  of  life.  They  talk  to  him  about  honor, 
honesty,  industry,  unselfishness.  In  all  of  this 
they  seek  to  reach  the  soul  of  the  child,  and  they 
are  endeavoring  to  awaken  and  nourish  the 
same  lofty  ideals  that  sway  their  own  souls.  It 
is  a  work  of  moral  suasion.  They  are  saying 
to  their  children  what  God  is  saying  to  all  of  us : 
“jCome,  let  us  reason  together.” 

^  God  can  not  reach  the  best  in  man  by  the 
play  of  inexorable  natural  laws  upon  his  being. 
He  must  talk  to  man  face  to  face,  soul  to  soul, 
and  that  is  revelation. 

While  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
at  times  a  bit  too  realistic,  too  anthropomor- 

[I29] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


phic,  yet  they  told  an  essential,  an  abiding  truth 
when  they  said  man  talked  face  to  face  with 
God.  Now  the  forces  of  evolution  have  been 
transferred  from  the  physical  to  the  moral  and 
spiritual  plane.  Man  was  helped  by  the  in¬ 
exorable  natural  laws  of  the  Immanent  God, 
now  if  he  is  to  rise  to  the  full  stature  of  his 
spiritual  manhood  he  must  have  the  help  of 
the  Transcendent  God,  his  heavenly  Father. 
God  gives  him  wisdom  and  strength,  and  that 
is  revelation. 

“Speak  to  him  thou,  for  he  hears,  and  spirit  with 
spirit  can  meet, 

Closer  is  he  than  breathing,  and  nearer  than  hands 
and  feet.” 

The  spiritual  powers  of  God  come  in  touch 
with  the  aspiring  soul  of  man  in  answer  to 
man’s  deepest  longing,  and  man  is  uplifted. 
This  is  revelation.  When  in  the  deep  of  his 
soul  man  realizes  his  absolute  need  of  God  — 
need  of  His  wisdom  and  strength  to  help  him 
live  the  moral  and  spiritual  life  more  com¬ 
pletely,  and  cries  to  God  for  help,  God  comes 
into  his  soul,  and  man  is  helped  —  this  is  revela- 


Evolution  and  Revelation 


tion.  Man  reaches  the  greatest  heights  of  his 
experience  when  he  can  say,  “Without  Thee, 
nothing  is  strong,  nothing  is  holy.  ’  ’ 

“In  finding  Thee  are  all  things  round  us  found, 

In  losing  Thee  are  all  things  lost  besides. ’  9 

This  is  a  glorious  truth,  and  there  is  a  scien¬ 
tific  basis  for  it.  No  words  are  nobler  than  the 
ones  of  Herman  Lotze  which  friends  placed 
upon  his  tombstone : 

“Love  for  the  living  God  and  longing  to  be 
approved  by  Him  is  the  scientific  as  it  is  the 
Christian  basis  of  morality;  and  science  can 
not  find  a  firmer  basis  nor  life  a  surer.  ” 

It  is  a  very  great  and  grievous  mistake  to  say 

that  evolution  has  a  tendency  to  destroy  our 

belief  in  revelation.  Evolution  makes  wav  for 

%/ 

it;  lays  the  foundation.  If  man  is  something 
more  than  an  animal,  if  he  is  truly  a  spiritual 
being,  and  needs  the  help  of  a  spiritual  God, 
his  Father,  revelation  is  a  necessity.  Revela¬ 
tion  is  just  as  natural  and  necessary  in  the  spir¬ 
itual  sphere  as  natural  laws  are  natural  and 
necessary  in  the  realm  of  nature.  It  is  the  same 
God  working  in  different  ways. 

Cr3i] 


CHAPTER  VIII 


WHAT  SHOULD  BE  OUR  ATTITUDE 
TOWARD  EVOLUTION  1 


I  SEE  no  good  reason  whatever  for  antago¬ 
nism.  The  rank  and  file  of  evolutionists  the 
past  hundred  years  have  not  only  left 
ample  room  for  the  philosophers  and  theolo¬ 
gians  to  affirm  faith  in  the  presence  and  power 
of  God  behind  laws,  but  they  have  said  over 
and  over  again  that  a  materialistic  or  atheistic 
interpretation  of  the  universe  is  unthinkable. 
They  have  never  taught  that  natural  laws  oper¬ 
ate  themselves.  Chance  and  mind  are  the  only 
things  they  have  to  choose  between,  and  they 
have  chosen  mind  as  the  explanation. 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  the  operation  of  laws 
apart  from  mind.  No  statute  law,  no  matter 
how  perfect,  operates  itself.  If  it  is  enforced 
it  is  because  of  living,  active  men  and  women 
behind  it.  <^For  the  same  reason  nowhere  else 
in  this  universe  is  law  self-operative^  Behind 


P32] 


What  Should  Be  Our  Attitude  Toward  Evolution f 


it  must  be  mind  and  will.  If  a  few  scientists  — 
one  or  two  of  note  in  each  generation  the  past 
hundred  years  —  have  taken  a  different  view 
surely  the  testimony  of  a  few  men  should  not 
outweigh  the  plain  and  forceful  teachings  of 
the  thousands.  Furthermore,  the  few  atheistic 
scientists  who  say  that  chance  is  the  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  universe  have  more  credulity  than 
those  who  say,  mind  and  will. 

The  evolutionist  finds  many  things  in  biology 
vThich  he  can  not  explain ;  but  it  is  very  permis- 
sable  for  him  to  say  in  explanation,  somehow, 
God. 

How  did  the  first  cell  come  into  existence? 
As  a  scientist  he  must  say,  from  a  scientific 
standpoint,  I  can  not  tell;  but  he  does  not 
stultify  his  intelligence  when  he  adds,  some¬ 
how,  God. 

How  does  the  cell  grow?  How  does  the  living 
cell  take  up  dead  matter  and  transform  it  into 
life?  Science  has  no  complete  answer.  Matter 
and  energy  play  a  part.  The  philosopher  and 
theologian  have  a  right  to  say,  somehow,  God. 

When  a  cell  reaches  a  certain  maximum  size, 
and  fission  sets  in  to  divide  it,  what  is  it  that 

1I33] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


determines  the  standard  maximum  size?  Can 
we  not  truly  say,  somehow,  God? 

The  same  is  true  of  resident  forces.  The 
human  embryo  develops  from  a  microscopic 
germ  cell  by  means  of  forces  that  reside  in  the 
cell.  But  is  it  possible  for  us  to  believe  that 
so  wonderful  a  thing  can  happen  without  some 
kind  of  supervision  from  intelligence?  The 
attitude  towards  evolution  of  an  increasingly 
large  number  of  people  is  one  of  thorough¬ 
going  acceptance.  They  are  not  brow-beaten 
away  from  the  belief  by  the  lecturer  who  puts 
most  of  his  energy  into  ridicule,  and  endeavors 
with  all  his  skill  to  raise  a  laugh  about  our 
progenitors  that  “once  had  tails,  and  skipped 
about  from  tree  to  tree.”  People  are  facing 
squarely  the  facts  that  tend  to  show  that  man 
has  ascended  from  the  brute.  The  thing  of 
chiefest  concern  with  us  should  be,  not  to  act 
like  a  brute  now ,  and  wwse  than  a  brute.  There 
is  no  need  for  a  man  to  be  ashamed  of  his  origin 
from  lower  forms ;  but  he  ought  to  be  ashamed 
for  acting  worse  than  a  brute  now.  No  fair- 
minded  man  can  deny  that  thousands  of  men 
and  women  act  worse  than  brutes  now.  Some 


[I34] 


What  Should  Be  Our  Attitude  Toward  Evolution f 


people  seem  to  think  it  a  most  horrid  thing 
ever  to  have  had  in  the  remote  past  an  ancestor 
that  had  a  tail.  But  is  it  any  more  horrid  than 
the  real  living  fact  known  to  all  students  of 
biology  that  the  human  embryo  of  every  child 
born  into  the  world  had  at  one  stage  of  its 
development  a  tail  longer  than  its  body!  Is  it 
any  more  horrid  that  our  remote  ancestors  were 
closely  related  to  apes  than  the  fact  that  can 
not  be  successfully  disputed  that  the  human 
embryo  at  one  stage  of  its  development  looks 
so  much  like  the  embryo  of  the  ape  that  you 
can  not  tell  which  is  ape  and  which  is  man! 

Face  these  facts  fairly,  and  get  over  the  idea 
of  “horrid. ” 

There  is  another  attitude  toward  evolution 
which  is  a  worthy  one.  That  is,  one  can  dis¬ 
believe  in  evolution,  and  at  the  same  time  be¬ 
lieve  that  it  may  be  true,  that  it  may  be  God’s 
way  of  doing  things.  In  other  words,  while 
you  do  not  accept  the  theory  you  are  willing 
for  your  neighbor  to  believe  it,  and  you  do  not 
call  him  atheist,  materialist,  and  a  perverter 
of  morals  and  religion.  We  meet  that  kind  of 
good  people  daily. 

[135] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


Mr.  Bryan  lias  admirably  described  this  atti¬ 
tude  in  liis  article  in  the  June,  1922,  number  of 
the  Homiletic  Review.  On  page  446  he  says : 

“It  is  not  contended  that  God  could  not  em¬ 
ploy  evolution  as  a  method.  *  *  *  He  could  make 
man  by  ‘  the  long  drawn  out  process  called  evo¬ 
lution  *  just  as  easily  as  He  could  make  man  by 
separate  act,  as  recorded  in  the  Bible. ’  ’ 

That  is  a  reasonable  and  unobjectionable  at¬ 
titude.  If  God  could  make  man  by  “the  long 
drawn  out  process  called  evolution”  then  surely 
evolutionists  who  believe  this  was  God’s 
method  are  not  atheists,  perverters  of  man’s 
morals  and  religion.  They  may  be  mistaken  in 
their  theory,  but  there  are  no  just  grounds 
whatever  for  saying  they  are  atheists,  etc.,  Mr. 
Bryan,  himself,  being  judge. 

But  unfortunately  Mr.  Bryan  did  not  stick 
to  his  text.  He  forgets  this  broad,  charitable 
statement,  and  before  he  closes  his  article  he 
has  nothing  but  scathing  denunciation  for  all 
who  teach  evolution,  and  he  denies  evolution 
as  a  possibility.  In  the  same  article,  page  449, 
he  says:  “It  would  not  be  worth  while  to  dis¬ 
turb  the  wild  flights  of  the  evolutionists  if  belief 


1I36] 


What  Should  Be  Our  Attitude  Toward  Evolution? 


in  Darwinism  did  not  disturb  the  philosophy 
of  life.  But  the  evolutionist  meddles  with  vital 
things.  He  poisons  both  religion  and  civiliza¬ 
tion.  ’  ’ 

In  the  same  article,  page  451,  Mr.  Bryan 
says:  “The  objection  to  evolution,  therefore, 
is  that,  with  nothing  to  support  it,  it  assails  all 
that  is  sacred  in  human  life.  It  undermines 
faith  in  God,  etc.”  That  statement  is  not  true, 
and  in  his  sober  judgment  Mr.  Bryan  knows 
it  is  not  true.  It  is  the  wildest  “guess”  that 
has  been  made  in  this  entire  discussion.  It  is 
not  true  that  “evolution  has  nothing  to  support 
it”;  it  is  not  true  that  the  people  who  believe 
it  and  teach  it  “assail  all  that  is  sacred  in 
human  life.”  The  moral  and  religious  values 
of  evolution  must  be  judged  by  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  which  intelligent  writers,  speakers  and 
ministers  who  believe  it  put  upon  it.  Hun¬ 
dreds  of  religious  papers,  magazines,  ministers, 
professors  in  colleges  and  universities,  put  no 
such  disparaging  interpretation  upon  it.  They 
believe  in  evolution,  and  their  preaching  and 
their  writings  are  a  constant  appeal  to  the 
moral  life,  to  all  that  is  divinest  in  man.  To 


B37] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


affirm  directly  or  by  implication  as  some  anti¬ 
evolutionists  are  doing,  that  such  men  as  Ex¬ 
president  Eliot  of  Harvard,  President  Lowell 
of  Harvard,  Faunce  of  Brown,  Angell  and 
Conklin  of  Princeton,  Butler  of  Columbia, 
Neebam  of  Cornell,  Dr.  Abbott  of  the  Outlook, 
Dr.  Vedder  of  Crozer,  and  a  whole  host  of 
teachers  and  ministers  are  too  ignorant  to  know 
the  bearings  of  their  teaching  on  the  moral  life 
of  the  people  or  are  too  vicious  to  care  is  in¬ 
excusable  effronterv. 

%f 

Why  can  not  anti-evolutionists  be  as  reason¬ 
able  and  as  fair  in  their  attitude  toward  evo¬ 
lutionists  as  astronomers  and  scientists  were 
toward  anti-gravitationists  and  all  those  who 
bitterly  opposed  the  doctrines  of  the  sphericity 
of  the  earth  and  the  helio-centric  doctrine  of  our 
universe  ? 

These  opposers  of  Science  were  clearly  in  the 
wrong,  no  mistake  about  that  —  but  the  scien¬ 
tists  did  not  call  them  atheists,  nor  did  they 
charge  them  with  undermining  religion  and 
morality.  There  is  no  more  justification  in  call¬ 
ing  evolutionists  atheists  than  there  would  have 
been  if  the  scientists  had  called  the  opponents 


[138] 


What  Should  Be  Our  Attitude  Toward  Evolution f 

of  Galileo,  Copernicus,  Newton  and  others  by 
such  opprobrious  names. 

Admit  as  Mr.  Bryan  has  done  that  evolution 
may  be  the  “long  drawn  out  process”  by  which 
God  has  made  the  universe,  and  it  is  plain  to 
see  that  the  charge  of  atheism  has  not  a  scintilla 
of  justification  in  logic,  science,  or  philosophy, 
or  common  sense.  A  few  evolutionists  have 
spoken  irreverently  and  very  foolishly  about 
prayer  and  about  God;  but  what  of  it?  Is  it 
not  a  fact  that  every  great  truth  has  been  more 
or  less  injured  by  its  friends?  With  some  peo¬ 
ple  is  not  the  priceless  gem  of  liberty  but  an¬ 
other  name  for  licentiousness  or  looseness?  Is 
not  democracy  sometimes  interpreted  in  terms 
of  anarchy?  Yes,  and  we  need  not  be  surprised 
if  some  people  see  in  evolution  no  God  and  no 
need  of  prayer. 

But  do  we  allow  the  great  doctrine  of  liberty 
to  stand  or  fall  with  the  teachings  of  the 
licentious?  Do  we  lose  faith  in  democracy  be¬ 
cause  some  anarchists  parade  under  that  name  ? 
Let  us  be  honest  and  fair. 

“Natural  selection”  and  “Survival  of  the 


[I39] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


Fittest”  are  phases  of  evolution  that  have  been 
misjudged  by  the  opponents  of  evolution. 

Evolution  does  not  stand  or  fall  with  Dar¬ 
win  ’s  theory  of  ‘ 4 Natural  Selection.”  There  are 
many  who  are  thorough-going  evolutionists  who 
do  not  accept  this  phase  of  Darwin’s  doctrine. 
Sometimes  a  scientist  will  state  from  a  public 
platform  his  disbelief  in  “ Natural  Selection,” 
and  it  is  amusing  to  see  how  some  newspaper  re¬ 
porters  herald  the  astounding  news  that  this 
scientist  no  longer  believes  in  evolution,  and 
predicts  that  evolution  is  on  its  last  legs !  The 
fact  is  that  a  number  of  scientists  from  the  be¬ 
ginning  never  believed  in  the  theory  of  “Na¬ 
tural  Selection,”  but  nevertheless  they  are 
thorough-going  believers  in  evolution. 

Whatever  may  be  the  merits  or  demerits  of 
4  ‘  Natural  Selection,  ’  ’  one  thing  it  does  not  mean : 
it  does  not  mean  that  the  laws  of  nature  oper¬ 
ate  themselves.  We  know  nothing  of  any  kind 
of  law  that  operates  itself.  Law  is  method. 
Behind  all  law  is  power.  The  vast  majority  of 
scientists  teach  that  behind  all  world  phenom¬ 
ena  is  Spiritual  Power. 

The  doctrine  of  “Survival  of  the  Fittest”  in 


[140] 


What  Should  Be  Our  Attitude  Toward  Evolution? 


the  sense  that  Darwin  used  the  term  is  as  true 
as  any  axiom  in  logic  or  mathematics.  The 
“ horror’ ’  of  the  doctrine  is  simply  the  perver¬ 
sions  of  those  who  are  too  prejudiced  to  under¬ 
stand  it.  The  “ Survival  of  the  Fittest”  means 
that  those  forms  will  survive  which  are  in  best 
keeping  with  their  environment,  without  any 
discussion  of  their  moral  qualities.  If  the  cli¬ 
mate  changes,  as  the  climate  has  changed  from 
time  to  time  from  warmer  to  colder,  the  ani¬ 
mals  that  had  most  hair  and  most  warmth  sur¬ 
vived,  while  those  that  had  no  hair  and  least 
warmth  would  perish.  Could  it  be  otherwise  ! 

In  a  country  invaded  by  enemies  those  forms 
would  live  that  could  hide  in  rocks  or  keep  out 
of  the  way  of  the  enemy  in  some  other  way,  or 
could  kill  the  enemy,  and  those  that  could  not 
would  perish.  This  is  the  “Survival  of  the  Fit¬ 
test.”  They  are  in  better  keeping  with  their 
environment.  Even  in  the  world  of  man,  in  the 
economic  realm,  this  law  sometimes  holds  sway. 
I  saw  its  sad  workings  in  the  panic  of  1893.  The 
man  who  had  money  enough  to  tide  over  the 
hard  times  survived,  the  man  who  had  nothing 
but  property  and  debts  went  to  the  wall.  It 

D4iJ 


Evolution  and  Beligion 


was  not  a  question  of  moral  fitness,  but  of 
financial  fitness.  Sometimes  the  man  of  honor 
went  down  while  his  unscrupulous  partner  sur¬ 
vived.  These  are  undeniable  facts,  “hawk  at 
it,  and  tear  it”  as  you  please. 

But  in  the  realm  of  man  the  law  of  i  ‘  Survival 
of  the  Fittest”  is  not  as  ruthless  as  it  is  else¬ 
where.  For  more  than  two  thousand  years  the 
best  men  have  been  preaching  that  the  moral 
man,  the  spiritual  man  should  survive ;  that  he 
is  the  fittest.  We  find  the  dawning  of  that  idea 
in  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Israel  was  in 
need  of  a  leader  to  direct  them  in  their  conflicts 
with  the  Philistines.  Samuel  was  commanded 
to  annoint  Saul  King.  The  writer  in  I  Samuel 
9:2  said  that  Saul  was  “a  choice  young  man: 
— from  his  shoulders  and  upward  he  was  higher 
than  any  of  the  people.”  Physical  qualifica¬ 
tions,  brawn,  and  cunning,  were  the  chief  con¬ 
siderations.  This  was  true  of  all  nations  at  that 
time.  But  we  find  the  beginning  of  a  new  and 
better  idea  in  I  Samuel,  16:17,  when  there  is 
to  be  the  selection  of  another  king.  Eliab,  one 
of  Jesse’s  sons  is  brought  before  Samuel  and 
Samuel  thought  because  of  his  stature  that 

P42] 


What  Should  Be  Our  Attitude  Toward  Evolution ? 


surely  he  was  the  right  one :  “But  the  Lord  said 
unto  Samuel,  Look  not  on  his  countenance,  or 
on  the  height  of  his  stature;  because  I  have 
refused  him:  for  the  Lord  seeth  not  as  man 
seeth:  for  man  iooketh  on  the  outward  appear¬ 
ance  but  the  Lord  Iooketh  on  the  heart.’ ’ 
More  and  more  that  idea  has  been  growing, 
and  today  we  believe  that  the  man  of  peace  and 
good-will,  the  man  of  honor,  character,  unselfish¬ 
ness,  the  man  of  good,  sound  body,  is  the  kind 
of  man  that  should  survive  and  people  the  earth 
with  offspring.  This  is  the  kind  of  men  and 
women  civilization  is  trying  to  produce  today. 
Therefore  when  some  of  the  German  people  In¬ 
terpreted  the  doctrine  of  the  “Survival  of  the 
Fittest”  in  terms  of  height  of  stature,  perfec¬ 
tion  of  physical  manhood,  intellectual  astute¬ 
ness  and  moral  ruthlessness,  they  were  harking 
back  to  the  idea  of  things  in  the  time  of  Saul, 
forgetful  of  the  fact  that  God  and  the  people 
repudiated  that  idea  as  noted  in  the  sixteenth 
chapter  of  I  Samuel. 

If  these  Germans  appealed  to  Darwin’s  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  “Survival  of  the  Fittest”  to  justify 
them  in  their  perverted  idea  of  things,  my 

[ 1 43  ] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


reply  is,  they  simply  misinterpreted,  distorted 
the  true,  modern  meaning  of  the  doctrine. 

The  doctrine  of  the  “Survival  of  the  Fittest” 
can  not  be  thrown  aside  because  some  people 
have  perverted  it.  Rightly  interpreted  it  is  a 
friend  and  not  an  enemy  of  the  human  race. 
The  ideal  man  is  one  who  has  a  sound  body,  a 
sound  mind,  and  a  good  heart.  The  sound  body 
can  not  be  neglected  nor  ignored.  Our  preach¬ 
ing  and  our  practice  are  in  the  line  of  perfect¬ 
ing  the  body,  giving  it  health  and  vitality.  And 
we  are  seeking  to  eliminate  the  physically  unfit. 
Just  how  far  we  should  go  in  this  in  all  cases 
it  is  impossible  to  decide.  But  the  difficulties 
surrounding  the  subject  are  not  going  to  make 
the  people  sit  idly  by,  and  do  nothing.  We  are 
seeking  to  eliminate  some  of  the  unfit  —  some 
who  seem  incurably  vicious  in  body  and  mind 
and  morals  —  by  sterilization. 

A  goodly  number  of  ministers  have  made  it 
a  rule  not  to  perform  the  marriage  ceremony 
for  people  who  have  or  have  had  some  com¬ 
municable  disease  that  can  give  to  innocent 
babes  some  of  the  worst  disorders  that  afflict 
mankind.  This  is  one  way  they  are  trying  to 

[J44] 


What  Should  Be  Our  Attitude  Toward  Evolution? 


make  the  fittest  survive.  Love  and  religion  do 
not  dictate  a  policy  of  non-interference  or  in¬ 
difference  where  the  bodies  and  the  souls  of 
men  are  at  stake.  The  incurably  unfit  should 
not  be  allowed  to  people  the  earth  with  their 
kind.  Men  of  strong  bodies,  and  minds,  and 
souls  is  the  ideal  of  a  sane  love  and  religion. 
Give  to  the  doctrine  of  the  “Survival  of  the 
Fittest”  the  interpretation  that  the  facts  war¬ 
rant,  and  it  will  be  seen  to  be  a  friend  and  helper 
of  the  human  race.  Kindness,  and  love,  and 
the  “golden  rule”  are  not  inconsistent  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  “Survival  of  the  Fittest.” 

Let  it  be  said  once  more  that  evolution  does 
noFteach  that  natural  laws  are  self-operative. 
The  development  of  the  mother  and  father  out 
of  whom  have  come  love  for  the  child,  the  de¬ 
velopment  of  the  chikFs  moral  nature,  love  of 
home  and  the  foundation  of  our  civilization  was 
not  an  “accident”  of  evolution.  Behind  t] 
operation  of  these  laws  was  Power,  Life,  God. 


p45] 


CHAPTER  IX 


OUTLOOK  FOR  THE  FUTURE  OF  EVOLU¬ 
TION  AND  ACADEMIC  FREEDOM 

THE  outlook  for  what  evolutionists  believe 
to  be  a  more  rational  interpretation  of 
natural  laws,  a  truer  view  of  the  Bible, 
and  a  saner  attitude  toward  the  freedom  of  our 

s 

schools  and  colleges  is  very  hopeful.  The  search 

for  truth  is  not  going  to  be  impeded  by  adverse 

legislation.  Legislatures  have  the  power  to 

regulate  the  course  of  studies  in  all  public 

schools,  but  they  are  going  to  use  this  power 

with  discretion.  Academic  freedom  is  a  part  of 

our  national  inheritance.  It  is  as  sacred  as 

the  freedom  of  the  press,  and  thoughtful  men 

are  not  going  to  throw  it  away  because  of  the 

prejudice  of  some  people. 

If  scientists  teach  false  doctrines  thev  must 

•/ 

be  refuted  by  scientists  in  the  class-rooms  of 
our  high  schools  and  universities  and  in  the 
laboratories  —  not  in  the  halls  of  legislatures 


[146] 


Outlook  for  the  Future  of  Evolution  and  Academic  Freedom 

by  men  who  have  not  made  any  special  study 
of  the  subject.  Never  in  the  history  of  educa¬ 
tion  do  we  find  that  the  scientists  have  been  set 
right  by  the  minister  or  laymen.  Whatever 
errors  scientists  have  made  they  were  corrected 
by  scientists.  Scientists  should  be  judged  by 
their  peers,  not  by  those  who  have  made  no  spe¬ 
cial  study  of  the  subject. 

The  Kentucky  Legislature  refused  to  give  its 
sanction  to  the  bill  to  prohibit  the  free  discus¬ 
sion  of  scientific  questions  in  its  public  schools. 
To  be  sure  the  vote  was  close  —  only  one 
majority  for  academic  freedom;  but  in  all  prob¬ 
ability  if  the  question  should  come  up  in  that 
state  again  or  in  any  other  state  the  vote  would 
be  larger  for  academic  freedom.  The  plain 
people  are  studying  the  question,  and  they  are 
using  their  common  sense  in  making  their  de¬ 
cisions  in  regard  to  it.  One  or  two  members  of 
the  legislature  who  voted  against  the  bill  to 
prohibit  the  teaching  of  evolution  said  in  sub¬ 
stance:  4  4  We  do  not  pretend  to  be  experts  on 
the  subject;  but  we  know  the  teachers  in  the 
high  schools  and  the  universities  who  believe 
in  evolution;  we  know  their  character  and 


Evolution  and  Religion 


intelligence;  these  teachers  say  that  evolution 
does  not  crowd  God  out  of  his  universe,  and  we 
are  inclined  towards  their  view;  therefore  we 
will  not  vote  for  the  bill. 99 

This  was  plainly  a  sensible  view  to  take. 
Whom  should  we  follow  if  not  the  men  of  in¬ 
telligence  who  lead  a  godly  life,  and  who  have 
given  a  life-time  to  the  careful  study  of  these 
scientific  questions'? 

Most  of  the  newspapers  of  Kentucky  were 
opposed  to  the  bill.  Even  in  small  towns  where 
conservatism  and  prejudice  are  most  apt  to 
abound  the  newspapers  championed  academic 
freedom.  As  reported  by  the  Literary  Digest , 
The  Rocky  Mountain  News  made  mention  of 
those  persons  “  ‘who  are  trying  to  turn  back 
the  clock  in  the  domain  of  religious  thought. ’ 
If  children  be  taught  that  religious  faith  is 
necessarily  tied  to  theories  of  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  special  creation 
by  divine  fiat  of  each  of  the  many  species  of  life 
on  this  planet,  it  will  not  be  surprising  if  ship¬ 
wreck  be  made  of  their  faith  when  they  begin 

to  face  the  facts  of  history  and  science . 

Science  has  not  shaken  the  fact  of  Christ. 


[148] 


Outlook  for  the  Future  of  Evolution  and  Academic  Freedom 

Scholarship  has  only  helped  to  make  it  stand 
out  more  clearly.  ’  ’ 

The  religions  press  is  on  the  side  of  evolu¬ 
tion.  The  Methodist  Western  Christian  Advo¬ 
cate  says,  4 ‘that  Christian  thinkers  have  taken 
over  the  theory  of  evolution,  and  adopted  it  as 
one  of  the  greatest  doctrines  used  today  in  sup¬ 
port  of  the  Christian  theory.” 

This  from  The  Literary  Digest:  “Educators 
and  religious  leaders  all  over  the  country  were 
up  in  arms  when  the  proposed  Kentucky  anti¬ 
evolution  hill  was  noised  abroad,  and  numerous 

/ 

telegrams  were  sent  to  President  Frank  L.  Mc- 
Vey,  of  the  University  of  Kentucky,  in  response 
to  his  request  for  opinions  on  the  proposed 
measure.  Such  a  measure,  wrote  Dr.  Lyman 
Abbott,  editor  of  The  Outlook,  would  be  fatal 
to  the  best  interests  of  pupils  in  any  school  in 
which  it  could  be  enforced.  Evolution  is  cor¬ 
rectly  defined  by  John  Fisk  as  God’s  way  of 
doing  things.  Practically  all  scientists  hold  it, 
and  most  colleges  teach  it  in  some  form.” 

Dr.  Angell,  President  of  Yale  University, 
said:  “To  prohibit  the  scientific  teaching  of 
facts  of  evolution  would  involve  adopting  the 

P49] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


intellectual  attitude  of  the  twelfth  century.  It 
is  a  proposition  which  could  not  be  seriously 
entertained  by  any  really  intelligent  person.  ” 

President  Lowell,  of  Harvard  University, 
said:  “Prohibiting  the  teaching  of  evolution  is 
antediluvian  follv. 99 

Dr.  Charles  S.  MacFarland,  General  Secre¬ 
tary  of  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of 
Christ  in  America  said:  “Any  attempt  to  im¬ 
pose  legislative  restrictions  on  the  teachers 
of  science  is  contrary  to  all  the  principles 
on  which  the  American  Republic  has  been 
founded/ ’ 

Leading  men  in  all  professions,  Governors  of 
our  states,  are  speaking  out  candidly  and  fear¬ 
lessly  in  support  of  evolution  and  the  rights  of 
academic  freedom.  The  utterances  of  Hon.  A.  A. 
Taylor,  Governor  of  Tennessee,  before  a 
teachers  ’  association  in  West  Tennessee,  as  re¬ 
ported  in  the  Memphis  Commercial  Appeal  are 
wholesome  and  uplifting.  He  said  in  part: 

“Whatever  may  be  the  opinion  of  the  cynics 
to  the  contrary,  I  maintain  that  no  argument  is 
needed  to  establish  the  fact  that  by  growth, 
progressive  development  and  expansion  during 

D5o] 


Outlook  for  the  Future  of  Evolution  and  Academic  Freedom 


many  thousands  of  years,  man  has  attained  to 
a  degree  of  moral,  mental,  if  not  physical 
superiority  immeasurably  above  his  prototype 
of  the  stone  age,  aye,  and  of  many  succeeding 
ages,  even  within  historic  times.  If  this  were 
not  true,  then  the  whole  scheme  of  man  and  na¬ 
ture  would  be  a  dismal  failure  and  we  should 
be  existing  to-day  —  if  indeed  we  existed  at  all 
—  as  a  rudimentary  humanity  in  a  rudimentary 
world.  For  it  is  evident  from  what  we  observe 
in  nature,  that  the  scheme  of  creation,  animate 
and  inanimate,  is  one  of  growth,  progress,  evo¬ 
lution,  from  the  lower  to  the  higher,  from  the 
inferior  to  the  superior.  The  earth,  the  planets, 
the  suns  and  all  the  solar  systems,  were  evolved 
from  nebulous  masses  of  gaseous  or  vaporized 
matter  incandescent  with  primordial  fire.  Such, 
I  believe  to  be  the  plan  and  formula  of  creative 
omnipotence  and  in  such  manner  sprung  the 
world  from  chaos.  The  work  days  of  the  Al¬ 
mighty  are  the  nightless  cycles  whose  suns 
never  set,  and  a  thousand  milleniums  of  labor 
to  Him  are  as  the  tick  of  a  watch  or  the  swing 
of  a  pendulum.  His  labors  consume  the  eter¬ 
nities,  and  He  maketh  the  desert  void  of  the 


Evolution  and  Religion 


illimitable  to  blossom  as  the  rose  with  the  glo¬ 
ries  and  wonders  of  his  handiwork.  Man  was 
created  ont  of  the  dust  of  the  earth,  but  how 
many  ages  the  process  covered  is  a  question 
which  science  can  never  fathom.  The  oak  alone 
rises  into  being  from  the  miracle  of  the  dust  — 
but  the  process  extends  through  more  than  500 
years.  In  the  Pacific  slope  states  —  notably 
California  —  there  are  giant  trees  to-day  which 
in  all  probability  were  stalwart  young  saplings 
when  our  Savior  was  bom,  and  perhaps  full 
grown  trees  when  William  the  Conqueror 
landed  on  the  shores  of  England.  We  do  not 
plant  seeds  today  and  gather  the  harvest  to¬ 
morrow,  but  only  after  many  laborious  days  of 
sunshine  and  shower.  The  act  of  creation  in¬ 
cludes  not  only  the  beginning,  but  the  finishing 
also.  In  this  sense  the  creation  of  man  is  not 
even  yet  complete  —  nor  can  it  be  until  his  soul 
shall  have  reached  the  full  stature  which  his 
creator  intended.  It  is  a  far  cry  from  proto¬ 
plasm  to  finished  man.  ’  ’ 

If  Mr.  Bryan  has  said  the  worst  that  can 
be  said  against  evolution,  I  am  confident  that 
evolution  is  safe  from  harm.  I  am  willing  for 


[152] 


Outlook  for  the  Future  of  Evolution  and  Academic  Freedom 


college  men  and  for  plain  men  of  common  sense 
the  world  over  to  sit  in  judgment  on  this  decla¬ 
ration.  Mr.  Bryan’s  principal  points  in  this 
discussion  are  ridicule  and  denunciation.  His 
supreme  idea  is  to  rule  the  question  out  of 
court  by  raising  a  laugh  about  “our  ancestors 
that  once  had  tails.”  His  next  strong  point  is 
to  denounce  as  atheists  and  corrupters  of  the 
morals  of  our  youth  the  teachers  in  the  high 
schools  and  universities  and  the  ministers  in 
our  best  and  strongest  churches,  who  favor  the 
doctrine.  He  may  write  a  thousand  books,  and 
flood  the  country  with  such  “arguments,”  but 
the  people  will  not  respond  to  such  methods. 
The  efforts  to  discredit  the  doctrine  of  evo¬ 
lution  by  misrepresenting  Darwin’s  attitude 
toward  God  will  not  save  the  day  for  the  anti¬ 
evolutionists.  I  use  the  word  “misrepresent¬ 
ing”  deliberately.  Mr.  Darwin’s  attitude  has 
been  misrepresented.  Reading  the  Life  and 
Letters  of  Darwin  written  by  his  son,  you  will 
find  the  following  facts:  Never  did  Darwin  say 
“I  do  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  God.”  All 
his  positive  statements  were  thoroughly  theistic. 
Can  you  imagine  statements  in  support  of  the 


D53] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


existence  of  God  plainer  and  stronger  than 
these:  “It  is  impossible  to  conceive  that  this 
grand  and  wondrous  Universe,  with  our  con¬ 
scious  selves,  is  the  work  of  chance. ”  “In  mv 
extreme  fluctuations  I  have  never  been  an 
atheist  in  the  sense  of  denying  the  existence  of 
God.”  Life  and  Letters  of  Charles  Darwin ,  by 
his  son,  page  279,  1879. 

Can  language  be  plainer  than  that?  If 
Darwin  had  said  ten  millions  of  times  in  differ¬ 
ent  words  that  he  believed  in  the  existence  of 
God  could  it  have  been  plainer? 

But  Darwin  had  doubts,  and  in  one  thing  he 
was  agnostic.  The  Duke  of  Argyle  reported 
Darwin  as  saying:  “The  idea  of  purpose,  mind 
behind  natural  phenomena  often  comes  over 
me  with  overwhelming  force.  But  at  other 
times  it  seems  to  go  away.”  (Quoted  from 
memory.)  The  thing  that  worried  Darwin  was 
the  great  amount  of  terrific  suffering  in  the 
world.  At  times  he  could  not  see  how  there 
could  be  such  suffering,  and,  at  the  same  time 
a  good  God.  But,  mind  you,  he  never  allowed 
his  doubts  to  destroy  his  belief  in  God.  He 
said:  “In  my  extreme  fluctuations  (doubts)  I 


[t54] 


Outlook  for  the  Future  of  Evolution  and  Academic  Freedom 

have  never  been  an  atheist  in  the  sense  of 
denying  the  existence  of  God. ”  (Italics  mine.) 

Furthermore,  ivlio  has  no  doubts?  Is  it  not 
hard,  sometimes,  and  impossible,  sometimes, 
for  the  most  avowed  believer  in  God  to  reconcile 
his  existence  with  the  suffering  and  injustice 
in  the  world?  Do  we  not  often  hear  some 
of  our  most  devout  ministers  say  that  maybe 
we  will  understand  these  things  better  by  and 
by?  That  we  must  believe  where  we  can  not 
know?  The  great  fact  is  that  every  educated 
man,  and  every  plain  man  who  dares  to  think 
for  himself  is,  to  some  extent,  an  agnostic. 
There  are  some  things  in  regard  to  which  the 
only  thing  he  can  say  is,  I  do  not  know.  For 
instance:  Who  can  account  for  existence?  The 
existence  of  anything.  How  did  matter  orig¬ 
inate?  How  did  Spirit  originate?  How  did 
God  come  into  existence? 

Most  people  are  satisfied  with  the  assumption 
that  matter  and  Spirit  have  always  existed; 
but  that  throws  no  ray  of  light  on  the  question 
of  origin.  ‘  ‘  Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out 
God,  canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty  to  per¬ 
fection?”  Job  11:7.  Job  could  not.  Can  any- 


D55] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


one?  Can  you?  Is  it  strange  that  people,  any 
people,  Darwin  and  others,  should  have  doubts? 
That  there  are  some  things  they  do  not  under¬ 
stand? 

But  Darwin’s  doubts  do  not  vitiate  the  doc- 
trine  of  evolution.  The  facts  of  evolution  are 
independent  of  any  man’s  explanation  of 
Primary  Cause.  Science  discusses  secondary 
causes.  Science  tells  us  what  the  secondary 
causes  are,  and  it  has  taught  us  many  unde¬ 
niable  facts.  The  great  question  of  Primary 
Cause  is  a  question  of  philosophy  and  theology. 

I  have  shown  that  the  overwhelming  number 
of  competent  scientists  are  theistic.  Nothing  is 
more  beautiful  than  this  from  Herbert  Spencer: 
“But  one  truth  must  ever  grow  clearer  —  the 
truth  that  there  is  an  inscrutable  Existence 
everywhere  manifested,  to  which  we  can  neither 
find  nor  conceive  either  beginning  or  end.  Amid 
the  mysteries  which  become  the  more  mysteri¬ 
ous  the  more  they  are  thought  about,  there  will 
remain  this  absolute  certainty,  that  we  are  ever 
in  the  presence  of  an  Infinite  and  Eternal 
Energy  from  which  all  things  proceed.” 

As  the  work  of  this  Eternal  Energy  has  re- 


[156] 


Outlook  for  the  Future  of  Evolution  and  Academic  Freedom 

suited  in  an  intelligible  Universe  and  an  intelli¬ 
gent  man  bow  can  we  withhold  belief  that  this 
Eternal  Energy  is  intelligent  ? 

Students  are  impressed  with  these  strong  and 
beautiful  words  of  Spencer  and  also  of  other 
great  evolutionists  and  it  helps  to  account  for 
the  fact  that  most  all  of  the  students  in  our 
high  schools  and  universities  believe  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  evolution.  These  alert  young  people 
are  not  going  to  hark  back  to  the  cosmogony  of 
the  Old  Testament.  This  cosmogony  has  been 
reverently  laid  aside  by  the  scholarship  of  the 
world.  The  student  body  as  a  whole  is  whole¬ 
some  and  reverent.  No  doubt  there  are  a  few 
that  are  flippant  and  shallow;  but  the  fact  re¬ 
mains  that  our  high  schools  and  universities 
are  sending  out  a  constant  stream  of  young  men 
and  women  who  are  truly  religious,  and  whose 
lives  are  swayed  by  the  great  sanctities  of  life. 

Professor  Carl  Murcheson,  of  Miami  Univer¬ 
sity,  Oxford,  Ohio,  deplores  the  fact  that  there 
are  quite  a  number  of  college  men  who  have 
been  sent  to  prison  for  small  offenses;  but  he 
adds :  4  ‘  The  evidence  is  very  strong  that  college 
training  is  a  strong  preventive  of  crimes  of 

05  7] 


Evolution  and  Keligion 


violence.  For  all  practical  purposes  crimes  of 
violence  on  the  part  of  college  men  can  be 
ignored.  Remember  that  two  per  cent  of  the 
criminals  are  college  men,  bnt  those  college 
men  commit  only  one  half  of  one  per  cent  of  the 
crimes  of  violence.” 

A  recent  report  from  the  University  of 
Chicago  shows  that,  out  of  2,000  students  there 
was  only  one  avowed  atheist,  and  two  agnostics. 
8S  per  cent  of  the  students  held  membership  in 
the  churches,  and  89  per  cent  attended  univer¬ 
sity  chapel. 

No  doubt  a  similar  showing  could  be  made 
for  the  other  universities  of  our  country. 

A  minister  in  one  of  our  large  cities  of  the 
South  said  recently  from  the  pulpit:  “If  the 
public  schools  and  state  universities  do  not 
teach  religion  they  should  on  the  other  hand 
not  ridicule  it.  If  they  fail  to  increase  the 
faith  of  the  students  they  have  no  right  to 
undermine  that  faith.  Yet,  that  is  what  they 
are  doing.  Seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  college 
graduates  never  go  back  to  the  Sunday  Schools 
after  graduation.  Almost  as  many  give  up 


[158] 


Outlook  for  the  Future  of  Evolution  and  Academic  Freedom 

their  church  going,  their  Bible  reading,  and 
their  prayers.  ’  ’ 

The  above  statement  is  an  inexcusable  ex¬ 
aggeration.  It  is  not  in  keeping  with  the  facts 
that  I  have  stated  in  regard  to  the  University 
of  Chicago  and  other  similar  facts  that  could 
be  cited  from  other  universities.  Such  exagger¬ 
ation  does  no  credit  to  religion,  or  the  church, 
or  the  minister  who  makes  it.  The  following 
is  a  very  significant  statement  taken  from  the 
Christian  Register ,  Boston,  of  July  6th,  1922, 
page  641: 

The  Continent,  a  Presbyterian  paper,  has 
been  conducting  an  investigation  among  the 
colleges  of  the  country  with  reference  to  the 
allegation  of  Mr.  Bryan  that  students  have 
traveled  far  from  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  and 
that  such  deflection  has  been  due  to  misguided 
scientific  teaching.  The  consensus  of  opinion 
from  the  nearly  one  hundred  colleges  inter¬ 
viewed  was  that  students  usually  pass  through 
an  intellectual  unrest.  Some  of  the  college 
presidents  declared  that  this  was  the  object  of 
college  training.  A  few  students  may  leave  the 
church.  More,  however,  are  won  than  are  lost. 


[159] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


Most  of  the  institutions  appear  to  be  continuing 
the  teaching  of  the  evolutionary  theory  despite 
the  opposition  of  Mr.  Bryan  and  the  fundamen¬ 
talists.  If  the  colleges  give  biblical  courses, 
they  employ  text-books  written  by  men  who 
are  classed  as  higher  critics.  ’ ’ 

Let  us  examine  the  accusation  that  “Seventy- 
five  per  cent  of  college  graduates  do  not  go 
back  to  Sunday  School.”  It  is  a  fact  that  some 
college  graduates  do  not  return  to  Sunday 
School,  and  there  is  nothing  surprising  in  that. 
Students  graduate  from  the  universities  from 
between  the  ages  of  25  and  35.  Is  it  not  a  fact 
that  a  great  many  people  quit  the  Sunday 
School  between  the  ages  of  25  and  35  whether 
they  are  college  graduates  or  business  men  or 
clerks  or  stenographers  or  what  not?  Look 
around  you  in  any  community.  Are  not  most 
of  the  people  between  the  above  ages  who  are 
not  in  the  Sunday  School  men  and  women  who 
never  attended  a  university?  University  train- 

•/  c 

ing  has  very  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

But  I  can  very  readily  understand  why  some 
high  school  graduates  and  college  students  do 
not  return  to  some  Sunday  Schools.  When  a 

[160] 


Outlook  for  the  Future  of  Evolution  and  Academic  Freedom 

young  man  goes  to  school,  and  finds  out  from 
his  study  of  geology  that  the  earth  is  some 
millions  of  years  old  instead  of  about  six  thou¬ 
sand  according  to  what  some  people  insist  is 
Bible  chronology.;  when  he  learns  from  history, 
and  botany,  and  biology  that  the  Bible  is  not  a 
handbook  of  science  there  is  no  wonder  that  he 
does  not  return  to  the  Sunday  School  which  con¬ 
tinues  to  teach  these  discarded  dogmas.  It  is 
a  compliment  to  the  young  men  and  women  that 
they  refuse  to  stultify  their  intelligence. 

Let  me  mention  a  case  that  actually  occurred: 
In  one  of  the  high  schools  in  one  of  our  cities 
a  young  girl  about  sixteen  was  taught  by  her 
teacher  of  geology  that  the  earth  was  many  mil¬ 
lions  of  years  old,  and  that  man  and  all  other 
creatures  were  much  older  than  commonly  sup¬ 
posed;  that  the  flood  was  local,  and  that  there 
were  other  discrepancies  between  the  Bible  ac¬ 
counts  and  science.  She  went  to  her  mother 
with  these  facts,  and  told  her  that  her  Sunday 
School  teacher  had  taught  her  otherwise,  and 
asked  what  she  must  do.  Her  mother  told  her 
that  her  high  school  teacher  was  right.  It 
resulted  in  the  girl’s  leaving  the  Sunday  School, 

[161] 


Evolution  and  Religion 


and.  joining  another  church  whose  Sunday 
School  teaching  was  in  keeping  with  modern 
science. 

The  college  professor  is  not  necessarily  ir¬ 
reverent,  and  he  is  within  his  rights,  when  he 
declares  in  the  class  room  that  when  the  state¬ 
ments  of  the  Bible  conflict  with  the  well-estab¬ 
lished  facts  of  science  the  student  should  follow 
science.  The  time  is  coming  when  the  Sunday 
Schools  that  do  not  take  this  position  will  be 
depleted,  and  justly  so. 

Dr.  Henry  C.  Vedder,  President  of  Crozer 
Theological  Seminary,  a  very  spiritual  leader, 
a  devoted  member  of  the  Baptist  church,  has 
this  to  say  in  his  pamphlet  on  a  “Safe  and  Sane 
Bible.” 

“I  once  heard  a  man  who  had  been  many 
years  a  teacher  in  one  of  the  Bible  schools,  boast 
that  he  still  believed  everything  that  he  had 
learned  about  it  at  his  mother’s  knee.  A  man 
of  his  intelligence  should  have  known  that  this 
was  something  to  blush  for,  not  to  boast  about. 
Our  dear  mother’s  walking  by  the  light  they 
had,  taught  us  some  things  about  the  Bible  that 
were  not  truth.  That  is  no  reason  for  honor- 


Outlook  for  the  Future  of  Evolution  and  Academic  Freedom 

ing  them  less,  for  they  did  their  best  by  us; 
but  we  shall  dishonor  ourselves  if,  with  the 
additional  light  that  a  generation’s  study  has 
thrown  on  the  Bible,  we  do  not  better  their 
knowledge. 

“A  speaker  can  easily  win  applause  from  an 
unthinking  audience  by  shouting,  4 1  believe  the 
Bible  from  cover  to  cover,  every  word,  every 
syllable ;  ’  but  no  educated  man  can  honestly  say 
that  today.  No  half-educated  man  can  honestly 
say  that.  To  say  that  honestly,  a  man  must 
have  escaped  education  altogether.  Advocates 
of  verbal  inspiration  and  literal  interpretation, 
if  they  could  succeed  in  persuading  the  world 
to  accept  the  Bible  at  their  valuation,  would 
make  it  impossible  for  any  educated  person  to 
believe  such  a  Bible.  They  would  make  such 
a  complete  divorce  between  religion  and  in¬ 
telligence  as  would  drive  all  the  intelligence 
from  the  churches.  The  real  friends  and  de¬ 
fenders  of  the  Bible  are  not  those  who  strive 
to  compel  men  to  accept  it  at  their  false  valua¬ 
tion,  but  those  who  ask  to  receive  the  Bible  at 
its  own  valuation.  Are  we  willing  to  receive  the 
Bible  for  what  the  Bible  itself  claims  to  be?” 


[163] 


Evolution  and  'Religion 


My  firm  belief  is  we  can  trust  the  plain  peo¬ 
ple,  and  this  is  a  hopeful  fact  in  connection  with 
the  higher  education  of  our  youth.  Here  is  an 
instance  that  shows  the  trust-worthiness  of  the 
men  and  women  who  are  controlling  our  edu¬ 
cational  institutions :  In  one  of  our  large  cities 
charges  were  brought  against  the  teacher  of 
one  of  the  high  schools  that  he  was  attempting 
to  “ thrust  the  famous  doctrine  of  evolution 
down  the  throats  of  the  third  grade  pupils.’ ’ 
The  question  was  discussed  in  a  board  meeting, 
and  the  Professor  was  completely  exonerated, 
and  was  re-elected. 

|  The  facts  show  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
with  its  larger  vision  of  God  and  creation  is 
growing  in  favor  with  all  thoughtful  people.  Let 
every  one  who  believes  the  doctrine  stand  up 
for  what  he  thinks  is  right.  It  is  our  duty  to 
proclaim  the  truth  as  we  see  it,  and  moral 
cowardice  ought  not  to  hinder  us.  Because  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  is  very  unpopular  in  some 
localities  should  not  prevent  the  student  of 
science  from  taking  a  firm  stand  in  support  of 
it.  In  nearly  every  generation  of  the  past,  men 
have  had  to  give  up  everything  that  was  dear 

[164] 


Outlook  for  the  Future  of  Evolution  and  Academic  Freedom 


to  them  for  the  sake  of  truth  as  they  saw  it. 
Let  us  be  just  as  willing  to  do  the  same  in  our 
generation. 

The  study  of  evolution  has  made  three  very 
deep  and  abiding  impressions  on  me : 

/lx  God’s  tireless  patience. 
j  2. '  The  sacredness  of  law. 
v3/  The  certainty  of  spiritual  help. 

God’s  tireless  patience  in  working  out  the 
great  problems  of  the  Universe  is  a  never  fail¬ 
ing  source  of  wonder  and  reverence.  Hundreds 
of  thousands,  nay,  millions  of  years,  he  has 
been  patiently  working  to  bring  His  physical 
Universe  with  all  its  plant  and  animal  forms 
to  perfection.  And  He  has  been  working  ceas- 
lessly  to  bring  man  in  his  moral,  religious,  and 
spiritual  ideals  and  daily  living  onward  and 
upward  toward  perfection.  God  is  working  still. 
Astronomers  tell  us  that  God  is  still  creat¬ 
ing  new  worlds.  God  is  still  working  in  the  soul 
of  man  endeavoring  with  man’s  co-operation  to 
create  higher  and  more  enduring  ideas  and 
ideals.  Some  day  war  will  cease.  Some  day 
there  will  be  peace  and  plenty  for  all  souls. 
The  Great  Being  through  whose  tireless  labors 


Evolution  and  Religion 


so  many  things  have  been  brought  to  perfec¬ 
tion  will  not  leave  man  in  his  present  state 
of  greed,  selfishness  and  sin.  The  God  of 
Isaiah  is  onr  God  today,  and  He  is  saying 
to  us  what  He  said  to  him:  ‘ 1  Fear  thou  not  for 
I  am  with  thee :  Be  not  dismayed,  for  I  am  thy 
God:  I  will  strengthen  thee;  yea,  I  will  help 
thee ;  yea,  I  will  uphold  thee  with  the  right  hand 
of  my  righteousness.” 

The  sacredness  of  law.  How  can  I  violate 
law",  the  law  of  the  land,  the  lavTs  of  my  physical, 
moral,  spiritual  being?  These  lavTs  are  the  ex¬ 
pression  of  ages  of  struggle  upvTard,  and  were 
nourished  at  every  step  by  the  Immanent  God. 
They  are  the  expression  of  the  longing,  the 
aspirations,  the  heart-aches  of  the  people. 

‘  ‘  Slowly  the  Bible  of  the  race  is  writ ; 

And  not  on  paper  leaves  nor  leaves  of  stone ; 

Each  age,  each  kindred  adds  a  verse  to  it, 

Texts  of  despair,  or  hope,  of  joy  or  moan.  ” 

Howr  can  I  violate  the  law  that  helps  me  to 
be  something  more  than  an  animal?  How  can 
I  violate  law,  and  fall  below  the  beast  of  the 
field? 


I1 66] 


Outlook  for  the  Future  of  Evolution  and  Academic  Freedom 

The  greatest  impression  of  all  is  the  certainty 
of  God’s  help  in  man’s  moral  and  spiritual  life. 
If  this  whole  tremendous  scheme  of  material 
and  physical  progress  from  “a  mist  on  the  far 
horizon”  to  suns  and  stars  and  planets  and 
man,  from  a  one-cell  plant  life  to  all  we  see  to¬ 
day  that  is  beautiful  and  good  is  the  outcome 
of  a  pervasive  Spirit,  the  ever-living  God,  how 
much  more  certain  it  is  that  this  same  Great 
Spirit  to  whom  man  is  most  akin  will  help  man 
to  rise  to  higher  and  still  higher  realms  of  the 
spiritual.  Man’s  physical  needs  are  important. 
They  can  not  be  neglected.  Nature,  the  Imma¬ 
nent  God  is  helping  to  feed  man  through  the 
unfailing  laws  of  the  seasons,  heat  and  cold, 
seedtime  and  harvest.  But  how  much  more 
necessary  it  is  that  man’s  soul,  the  divine,  the 
immortal  part  of  him,  should  be  strengthened, 
should  be  built  up  into  all  the  power  and  beauty 
of  a  true  man.  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that 
God,  in  nature,  should  be  so  very  careful  of 
man’s  physical  needs,  and  indifferent  to  the 
needs  of  his  soul. 

Revelation,  the  presence  and  power  of  the 
ever-living  God  in  the  soul  of  man,  is  a 


Evolution  and  Religion 


complement  of  organic  evolution,  and  on  scien¬ 
tific  grounds  I  believe  the  doctrine. 

The  evolutionist  is  a  man  of  religion.  This 
is  God’s  world.  We  marvel  at  His  tireless  pa¬ 
tience  and  persistence.  They  fill  us  with  hope 
for  the  future  of  the  human  race.  He  who 
worked  millions  of  years  to  perfect  the  earth 
and  make  it  habitable,  and  who  filled  it  with 
good  things  and  beautiful  for  man’s  mind  and 

bodv  will  never  cease  his  efforts  to  make  here 

%/ 

and  now  a  stronger,  better,  human  being.  The 
answer  to  our  cry  for  help  in  this  sin-cursed 
world  against  greed,  injustice,  passion,  and 
selfishness  is  to  be  found  in  the  best  and  sanest 
work  we  can  do  to  help  ourselves,  and  in  our 
steadfast  trust  in  the  Immanent  God  of  evolu¬ 
tion  and  the  Transcendant  God  of  religion. 

THE  END 


[168] 


Bibliography 

WORKS  on  evolution  and  religion  are  very 
numerous.  One  will  find  a  most  abundant 
literature  on  the  subject  in  almost  any  public  library. 
I  have  found  the  following  works  very  instructive 
and  very  interesting:  The  Bible ;  Dr.  Sunderland, 
Origin  and  Character  of  the  Bible ;  Darwin,  Descent 
of  Man ,  and  Origin  of  Species ;  Life  and  Letters  of 
Darwin ,  by  his  son ;  LeConte,  Evolution  and  its  Rela¬ 
tion  to  Religious  Thought ;  John  C.  Kimball,  Ethical 
Aspects  of  Evolution ;  Dr.  Woods  Hutchinson,  The 
Gospel  According  to  Darwin ;  Oscar  Schmidt,  Descent 
and  Darwinism ;  John  Fisk,  Outlines  of  Cosmic  Phi¬ 
losophy  (2  vols.)  ;  Huxley,  Lay  Sermons  and  Reviews; 
Henry  Drummond,  The  Ascent  of  Man  and  Natural 
Law  in  the  Spiritual  World;  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott,  The 
Evolution  of  Christianity ;  Briggs,  The  Bible,  the 
Church,  and  the  Reason;  Cyclopedia  Biblica  (5  vols.) 
article,  Creation ;  Cyclopedia  Britannica,  articles 
Botany,  Biology,  and  Evolution ;  Prof.  Needham, 
General  Biology ;  Dr.  -  J.  W.  Buckham,  Religion  as 
Experience;  Dr.  Andrew  D.  White,  A  History  of  the 
Warfare  of  Science  with  Theology,  (2  vols.)  ;  Dr. 
Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old 
Testament.  A  study  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
Higher  Criticism. 


II 


Date  Due 


- 

% 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

